ES / Sanjeevan: from exposing others to facing the channel's extortion allegations
Inside ES screenshots, the accusations target officials. Outside them, @Sg265alibaba fires back, drawing Sanjeevan together with Dato Ben, Liu and Pang into extortion allegations. A platform that exposes others is itself put under another channel's spotlight.
First, distinguish the two voices.
Edisi Siasat, or ES, questions officials' conduct in these retained screenshots: who uses connections to obtain transfers, who misuses government resources and who receives special treatment. The channel's surrounding text asks whether this platform, presented as a whistleblower, also exposes selectively, protects associates or uses exposure as pressure.
The channel is the party that connects Sanjeevan Ramakrishnan's name to this confrontation.
On 11 July 2024, it published a “GENG 265 ALIBABA” relationship chart placing him alongside Dato Ben, Liu Han Ming, Pang Kong Hong and others. Some people have multiple responsibilities beside their names; Sanjeevan's box mainly contains his name and designation. The chart puts people in the same circle without explaining what he specifically manages.
A seven-person list appeared again on 22 July, still including him. The channel then previewed disclosures involving warehouses, companies, smuggling, drug trafficking and scams. The language was sweeping; individual duties were not set out.
On 28 July, an approximately four-minute video began supplying another layer of background for that name.
Alongside images of people, the video embeds an old The Star story about MyWatch dated 10 June 2016. Eight-year-old public reporting is repackaged with new narration in 2024. The news provides personal background; the narration separately adds allegations involving police connections, money and extortion. Both layers cannot be attributed to the old report.
The video asks: why does ES have internal police information?
According to the available machine transcript, the narration attributes the information channel to a relationship between Sanjeevan and a senior Bukit Aman police officer, also claiming that the officer has promotion ambitions. It then alleges hotel meetings with police and anti-corruption personnel, with money maintaining relationships. It further alleges that Sanjeevan solicits money from gambling operators, while complaints about him sent to ES do not receive equally vigorous exposure.
The sharpest charge is not about the brightness of the spotlight, but the author's claim that it chooses whom to illuminate. Others are shown clearly; when associates are involved, exposure goes quiet. Selective exposure is the narrator's allegation, not something this edited video has independently checked across every submission.
The video also mentions his father. The narration says the “PR” maintaining good relations between Sanjeevan and OCPD Jempol is his father. That describes a particular local connection. It does not establish who handles the entire 265 network, or a unified public-relations structure under Dato Ben.
July places the people, then supplies background. By September, the channel speaks directly of extortion.
On the evening of 1 September, it first reposts ES screenshots about senior police figures, while its outer caption tells “ES Sanjiwen and Geng 265 Alibaba” not to insult the police chief. ES inside the image says one thing; the channel criticising ES outside says another. Lifting words and stitching them together would turn an exchange between opponents into one side's self-description.
Just over an hour later, English, Chinese and Malay versions follow one another.
The Chinese post first says, in translation: “If comparing who most likes to extort BAO, if ES ranks second, it is hard to find who ranks first.” It then names people: “Dato Ben Dato Liu Dato Pang are involved with ES Sanjiwen,” and accuses them of extorting “BAO” across Malaysia.
This time, the channel goes beyond placing names together in a chart and explicitly alleges joint participation in extortion. It brings Dato Ben, Liu, Pang and Sanjeevan into the same accusation.
But it does not specify who “BAO” refers to, which sum was demanded on which day, who received or paid it, or how the people divided their roles. The nationwide claim is broad; a transaction-by-transaction account is absent. Three language versions still constitute the same set of allegations.
The same group of posts names Dato Anis Rizana, alleging close ties to this senior Customs figure and assistance from her. On 3 September, the channel again calls Ben, Liu, Pang and Sanjiwen “bos” of Geng 265 Alibaba. More people and stronger labels appear, but corresponding documents establishing powers and actual cooperation do not.
The confrontation then expands from extortion to who influences enforcement.
On 20 September, the channel reposts a set of ES posts involving politics, civil servants' activities, airport facilities, local administration and police personnel matters. The ES screenshots present these as scrutiny of public power. The channel's outer text instead condemns them as sowing discord among police and insulting senior officials, and asks that the government and prime minister be given time.
The same disclosures are treated as oversight by one side and disruption by the other. The dispute now concerns not only whether a message is true, but who is entitled to hold the spotlight.
On 1 October, the channel offers a sharper claim: Malaysia seems to have acquired a “new department.”
According to the post's allegations, officials act on ES content to protect themselves, even making arrests indiscriminately, while 265 Alibaba allegedly pushes ES from behind. This is the channel's attack on the relationship between exposure and power, not the actual creation of a Malaysian institution.
The phrase “new department” gives a phone screen the apparent power to issue orders. Yet the material does not supply a complete operating chain showing who selects posts, receives complaints or pressures whom.
The recurring label “ES Sanjiwen” especially requires care. It is an identity connection made by the channel. It does not establish that Sanjeevan personally operates every ES post or receives every submission. The available material also lacks his complete response or a judicial determination resolving these counter-allegations.
From July's relationship chart to September's joint-extortion claim and October's “new department” satire, the allegations do become increasingly severe. The fullest record is of how the confrontation escalates. The largest gaps remain how the people cooperate and how the alleged demands for money actually occur.
ES shines a light on officials; the channel turns it back on ES. The reversal in the headline has happened at the level of narrative, but the allegations' truth has not thereby been settled. However bright the light, it must illuminate who holds it, not merely the other side's name.