The Bar Council's non-partisan stand on the azan issue is shocking. Even more shocking when it blatantly defended its stand on the grounds of free speech and press freedom.

Practicising non-censorship of articles on the grounds of championing free speech and press freedom doesn't give anybody the right to touch on issues that offend the sensitivities of the Muslim community.

Yang Pei Keng's - writer of the Infoline article - argument that the Muslims' call to prayer, the azan, could be considered by some as 'noise pollution' and thus a nuisance to residents in the vicinity, is uncalled for.

The Muslim community in the country has always respected the religious freedom of others. Yang should know better as the Muslim community has never complained when the Chinese celebrate their festivals by beating drums during Chinese New Year lion dances or of the loud music from Chinese operas performed in marquees during the seventh lunar month's Festival of Hungry Ghosts.

'Hell money' is also burnt outside Chinese residence but the Muslim community has never once complained about it polluting the environment. Why all of a sudden is the azan said to be 'noise pollution and an annoyance to neighbours'?

What if I were say that drum-beating and the burning of 'hell money' during Chinese festivals also contribute to noise pollution and are an annoyance to neighbours?