Associate Professor Ho said that the police were 'perhaps being overly cautious' and that their actions were 'probably an over-reaction', but he then contradicted himself by saying that under the tense situation which he judged could lead to trouble, the police action was 'not totally unjustified'.

Prof Ho also revealed that the two men could have refused the police 'request' for an 'interview' at the police station. Since when has it become acceptable to decline a summons for interrogation, or for the police to call for one, without consequence?

One is prompted to ask whether justification for police action should be permitted to fall within such a grey area, especially when confronting a situation with the potential for trouble. Being in the front line of law-and-order enforcement, police have to be certain in their assessment and make the appropriate decision backed by sound reasons. Police need to be able to think on their feet without calling their superiors for answers.

Thus 'perhaps', 'probably' and 'not totally' cannot be acceptable for it shows the police to be inadequately informed in their grasp of the law and their legal duties.

If indeed the police had made a mistake, it should be stated as such, accompanied by a sincere apology. Otherwise, the police should firmly justify their action and eliminate the 'maybe' from their explanation.

Law Sin Ling