I refer to the Malaysiakini report Suhakam to probe 'bloody' ceremah .

The recent incident of shootings by the police during a public gathering in Kuala Terengganu, raises a number of questions on public order operations and the use of force by the police force.

The role of maintaining public order within the police force lies with the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU). If indeed there was a 'riot' as claimed by the police, international standards clearly state that force must be used only as an exceptional measure and that non-violent means must be tried first. Public order police are usually trained to use other alternatives such as persuasion, negotiation and mediation. Force is only used when these other methods fail.

Police may gradually increase the use of force depending on the situation. First, they should use 'non-lethal' weapons such as batons, tear gas or water cannons. Selection of force should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, At the same time, the police must be equipped with self-defence equipment such as shields, helmets and bullet-proof vests. Proportionality can only be achieved if the police have a broad range of techniques available to them.

This raises the question as to why constable Wan Abdul Aziz, a general duty officer - whom I assume was not trained in public order control and was without any self-defence equipment - was deployed 'direct women and children to leave the area'. This should have been the duty of an FRU personnel.

In many public demonstrations worldwide, when some elements in the crowd turn violent, the police in those countries who are properly equipped with the above-mentioned training and equipment are able to deal with the situation without firing a single shot.

Therefore, even if it can be proven that Wan Abdul used firearms in self-defence against an imminent threat of death and serious injury, there is a clear failure on the part of those in command in managing public order operations and ensuring that all their personnel are adequately equipped to manage the situation.

Another question that should be raised is why was Wan Abdul dressed in plainclothes rather than in his uniform? It is standard operating procedure that when carrying out policing functions, a police officer should be in uniform in order to be easily identified by civilians as this sometimes helps to deter people from committing crimes. By not being in uniform, this lends credence to the claim by the opposition that he was part of the team of plainclothes police officers operating as 'agent provocateurs'.

In my opinion, only an independent public inquiry can answer these questions. Since an external police accountability mechanism, like the proposed IPCMC, has yet to be established, an independent committee should conduct the inquiry in an open and transparent manner. Only through this process will we able to assess if proper procedures were followed and if legitimate force was used.

If not, then appropriate action must be taken against those responsible within the chain of command to ensure that incidents like this do not reoccur in the future and those guilty are punished.