Kulai / Senai: a teenager attacked for refusing to join, then a fatal case revives gang controversy seven years later
Refusing to join left him injured. In this 2019 Kulai case, media reports citing police brought school acquaintances and Geng 265 and 21 into view. Seven years later, a teenage girl died in Kulai, while online posts drew political figures and “Alibaba 265” into the controversy.
The same area, recurring gang names. But what connects victims, group photographs and a fatal case across those years?
Begin on 22 March 2019.
Media reports at the time cited Kulai district police chief Tok Beng Yeow as saying that school acquaintances had asked the teenager to join Geng 265 and 21. After refusing, he was threatened, forced into a car, beaten and eventually abandoned at an estate in Senai. Reports recorded injuries to his head and body and fractures to fingers on both hands.
Recruitment slogans may talk of brotherhood. What the teenager encountered was a price even for saying no.
The material gives two ages: 16 and 17. Most reports and subsequent court-charge coverage put the incident at 3:50 a.m. Police said seven school acquaintances were involved; three youths were subsequently arrested and appeared in reports about the charges.
The three were arrested on 25 March. On 28 March, they were charged with rioting at the Kulai Magistrates' Court and each granted RM1,000 bail. At the next mention on 23 April, the welfare report remained incomplete and the case was adjourned to 14 May. The available reporting does not provide their final verdicts.
The references to 265 and 21 in this case come from a named police source. The reports at the time did not connect the case to Dato Ben, KSRM or a nationwide command structure.
In 2024, another set of Kulai / Senai material began placing more names in the picture.
A mixed video retained by @Sg265alibaba on 22 July opens with the words “the slashing incident at the 26th mile — it has already been three days.” Organisation charts, event photographs, injured people and hospital beds follow. The accusations move from local conflict to business and then political connections.
The “26th mile” on screen is not the 26th day of a month. The channel's 2024 posting date also does not supply the missing month and year of the older conflict in the video.
The video's author names Pang Qi Sheng (Ah Sheng) and Ng Yu Xuan (Ah Fei), gives local titles in Senai and Kulai, and asks why police have provided no news. It then introduces “95 company,” alleges involvement in cigarette and alcohol smuggling and four-digit betting, calls Dato Ben its chairman, and claims that the network says it has Teo Nie Ching's backing.
According to the author, behind those involved in street violence lie businesses, positions and relationships invoked to pressure others. But the material does not identify which registered entity “95 company” actually is.
The group photographs that follow make the accusations feel more substantial.
The video includes event photographs of Dato Ben and Teo Nie Ching. One frame shows a TABUNG HARAPAN MALAYSIA cheque for RM100,000 dated 28 July 2018. In November 2024, the channel again used event photographs to accuse Teo of supporting Alibaba 265's growth and benefiting from it.
The photographs should be retained, and the source of the allegations kept clear. Attendance at the same event and the channel's claims of political funds, benefits and protection are different layers of material. The RM100,000 cheque does not automatically become a bribe in a particular case because it was edited into an accusatory video.
The mixed video also discusses a youth sports club dinner attended by Teo Nie Ching. According to its author, an assault occurred, some people shouted 265 slogans, and the images then move to wounds and hospital-treatment photographs.
Slashing, dinner, hospital beds: one sequence after another, charged with emotion. But the video does not fully establish whether they involve the same night or injured person. Editing connects images; missing case details remain missing.
On 26 October that year, the channel posted a screenshot from the Hao Feng account challenging 360 in the voice of “our Kulai 265” and boasting that even after arrest, release would come within three to five days.
The boast concerns more than willingness to fight: it suggests an ability to get out afterwards. Yet the caption gives no specific person, arrest date, case or release procedure. “Three to five days” is loud; the actual process is absent.
The attachments reveal another problem. The same ambulance photograph bearing Rejang Medical Centre's name appears both in Sibu shooting material and in the Kulai / 360 post. The caption changes the location; the picture remains the same.
On 25 August 2026, another fatal incident occurred in Kulai, killing a 17-year-old girl.
The Vibes' court report dated 9 September records that a 26-year-old Vellfire driver faced one murder charge and four attempted-murder charges. Four other teenagers were charged over damage to a Myvi and pleaded not guilty.
One driver facing five charges and four teenagers facing a separate set of property-damage charges must be kept distinct. Charges are not convictions, and the four teenagers' pleas cannot be assigned to the driver.
The report cited Johor police chief Ab. Rahaman Arsad as saying preliminary investigations suspected a clash involving two secret societies. The reporting reviewed did not name them. The appearance of 265 and 21 in 2019 cannot fill in the unnamed groups in 2026.
A separate confrontation developed over the fatal case's alleged political connections.
Sinar Harian reported on 28 August that online posts had linked Teo Nie Ching, DAP and “Alibaba 265” to the case. Senai assemblyman Wong Bor Yang had lodged a police report the previous day and denied the allegations. This records Wong's denial and complaint, not the same statement personally made by Teo, nor a police or court ruling on whether the online claims were true.
The old group photographs are in the material; so are the channel's protection allegations and the 2026 denial lodged with police. Remove one layer and the story is incomplete. Merge all three into a single conclusion and the case acquires responsibility the material has not established.
From an assault after refusal to join, through circulated older conflicts and challenges, to a girl's death, Kulai / Senai offers more than familiar names. It also contains injured people, defendants, charges and incomplete timelines and relationships.
Names may recur throughout one article. Who bears what responsibility for which incident still requires a case-by-case match. However loudly a relationship is proclaimed, it cannot testify to the missing sequence of events.