SUHAKAM Report of Public Inquiry into the Incidents During and After the Public Assembly of 28 April 2012 5.13 Notwithstanding the number of participants, it is the Panel’s finding, supported by testimonies from civilian as well as police witnesses that before 3.00 pm, the participants behaved, by and large, in a peaceful and calm manner, and that the atmosphere was carnival-like with many people singing, laughing and chatting. Events after 3.00 pm Dismantling of the Barricades 5.14 It is also the Panel’s finding, again supported by testimonies, that there was a turn in the events approximately at or around 3.00 pm, which coincided with the dismantling of the barricades installed at the intersection of Jalan Raja and Jalan Parlimen by persons unknown to the Panel. According to YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim (W47), she was informed by DBKL officers that the FRU was ready to take action to disperse the crowd at approximately 3.00 pm, which it did. 5.15 The Panel makes no finding as to whether the firing of the water cannon and tear gas by the police at or around 3.00 pm was pre-meditated. Suffice to say that it was after that the dismantling of the barricades at the Jalan Raja and Jalan Parlimen intersection that the FRU started to take action to disperse the participants by the use of water cannon and tear gas. The Issuance of Warning 5.16 The Panel finds that the FRU gave the warning to the participants to disperse only before the initial firing of the water cannon and the tear gas but none thereafter. 5.17 The Panel finds that the first warning given by the FRU could not be heard by the participants. According to ACP Jamaludin, the warning and command given by the FRU was via a loud speaker and sound commanders, yet it could not be heard by all the participants. This finding was supported by the testimonies of Kunabal a/l K. Rajagopal (W1), Chong Min Shih (W4) and Mohd Radzi bin Abd Razak (W17). 5.18 According to Superintendant Zahari bin Hj. Mohd Yusoff (W23), banners should have been used to warn the participants in cases involving crowds as huge as the one on 28 April. However, the Panel was informed that the police could not use the banners on that day because of inaccuracies in the wordings on the banners. 5.19 The Panel finds that contrary to popular belief, the ringing of the bells by the FRU does not serve as a warning to the participants; rather it is a signal for the FRU personnel to be on stand by before firing the water cannon and tear gas. 55