Sibu shooting: how did one post turn hospitalisation into death?

In the same Sibu shooting post, Malay says seriously injured and English says seriously injured, but the Chinese opening says dead. Stranger still, the Chinese text later says the injured man remains in hospital receiving treatment. Before the message ends, its wording is already arguing over whether a person is alive.

The message appeared on @Sg265alibaba on 26 October 2024. Attachments included scene photographs and news cards bearing Majoriti's branding: a damaged windscreen, a man taken to hospital, and a headline describing serious injuries.

According to the police account cited in the news, the man was in his forties and sitting in the driver's seat outside a school, waiting for his child. An unidentified person approached and shot him. People nearby heard something like a tyre bursting, then saw someone lying near the grass beside the car.

The original news was alarming enough. The Chinese caption supplied an additional ending.

Both Malay and English recorded hospital treatment. The latter part of the Chinese text also cited police as saying the injured man was still receiving treatment. This set of material includes no separate report of his death. “Dead” therefore conflicts with its own following text, let alone establishing that he later died of his injuries.

There are timing differences too. The news cards place the incident between 2 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.; then Sibu district police chief Zulkipli Suhaili said the man was shot in the driver's seat. Two cards bear the 23rd and 24th respectively, while the text says Thursday. The channel's repost date of 26 October cannot erase those differences.

The available images do not fully explain how the man moved from inside the car to beside it. The material also does not name Dato Ben, 265 or Alibaba as being behind the shooting. Placement in a gang-themed channel changes the surrounding context; it does not add to the police findings.

An explicit death record belongs to another, older Sibu case later reposted by the channel.

At about 1 a.m. on 20 April 2017, businessman Clement Tan Teck Howe was having drinks with friends at a coffee shop on Wong King Huo Road. According to a retained news screenshot dated 22 April, two men approached, one argued with Clement, and a group carrying wooden and metal objects joined the assault.

Clement and his friends tried to escape. About 200 metres away, they encountered another group of more than ten attackers. Clement was injured and lost consciousness. He was taken first to a private clinic, then to Hospital Sibu, where he died.

The old report recorded twelve arrests, with two people remanded for five days and the others released. Police were seeking eleven more people to assist investigations. Peter Ling Deng Sing, then 29, was among those listed.

Peter's position in that record was a person sought by police. The material provides no subsequent trial outcome for him, and a list of people sought is not a list of convictions.

The older report also contains an important police statement. Then Sarawak police commissioner Mazlan Mansor denied that the case was a high-profile crime linked to gang activity, saying it arose from a misunderstanding on WeChat.

Yet when @Sg265alibaba reposted the old report in November 2024, its outer caption alleged that Alibaba 265's entry into Sarawak involved drugs, illicit cigarettes, gangs and bribery.

Inside, the police statement concerns a WeChat misunderstanding. Outside, the repost talks about a gang network. Two voices appear on one screen, but their attribution must not disappear into the overlap.

A chat message appears below the same group of screenshots. Its author says that the second person in the police appeal image was later shot dead in Bintulu and had a 2017 case background involving Section 302. The name label in the second position is Peter Ling Deng Sing.

Someone previously sought by police thus appears again as the alleged victim of a later fatal shooting. That connection is made by the chat author; the screenshot gives no precise date or full account of the later case. Its stated location is Bintulu, and it does not explain any connection to the Sibu vehicle shooting outside the school.

By January 2025, the allegations intensified.

The channel published an image accusing Hii Lu Kwong (Siao Di) of planning Peter's killing to control Sibu gambling shops. It further alleged that Huang Tiong Sii arranged or helped Hii avoid arrest, and placed names including Robin Sim in the associated network.

The image also listed eleven categories of business, including online gambling, illegal four-digit betting, illicit cigarettes, alcohol, moneylending and cockfighting. Its author claimed that Hii also acted as a bribery “PR,” using firearms, violence and enforcement connections to intimidate non-cooperators, and further claimed good relations with senior anti-corruption personnel in Peninsular Malaysia.

In this accusatory graphic's account, controlling business relies not only on goods and money, but on making people believe even a police report may be useless. The claims are severe, yet a sequence connecting these methods specifically to Peter's killing remains absent.

On 16 January, the same image appeared again. The channel questioned whether SPRM was protecting Hii, and a new chat used the phrase “cuci wanted,” claiming that even a sought or wanted status could be cleared.

One phrase makes enforcement records sound washable. But the screenshot does not supply an official record showing such alteration. Nor does this material contain judicial findings establishing the claims that Hii planned the killing or Huang helped him avoid arrest.

Separate the stories and their positions become clear: Clement died after an assault in 2017; a chat says Peter was later shot dead in Bintulu; the available account of the 2024 Sibu shooting outside a school describes a man seriously injured and hospitalised. Peter connects the first two sets of material, and Hii appears in later allegations. The third shooting has not been connected to that chain of people.

One article can contain several cases. Those cases cannot share a perpetrator, motive or ending by default. Especially when the Chinese opening already says “dead”: however shocking the story, it must first agree with its own later sentence, “still receiving treatment in hospital.”