Q2. Because he claims that the playing of musical intrusments is essential in the procession but not universal.

Q3. I agree, because the playing of musical intruments is not compulsory in their religion, and also because the musical disrupt public peace

Q2. they are claimed to be "too noisy" and that would disrupt other citizens in the country.

Q3. disagree, because it is disrespecting article number 15 in the Constitution of Singapore, which states that every person has the right to practise one's religion

Question 2: He claims that music played during thaipusam is more offensive and distracting as compared to other religions music and by popular demand has made the rule??????

Question :3 I disagree as even though music from different religions can be offensive in different ways and all religions should be treated with the same respect and not be overrun because of popular demand of the public???????

2. They claimed that the musical intruments used during the procession are 'not universal'

3. No, i disagree. I feel that every citizen has his own rights to practice thier own religious practices, in this case, it is discrimination to not allow them to play musical instruments during the procession, meanwhile allowing musical instruments to be played on St Patrick's Day, which is a less renown festival.

2) Cos they think it's noisy since its disturbing to others

3) I don't agree cos I think they should have the freedom to do whatever they want in the name of religion. And I believe that equality should be implemented for every citizen. Expessially since the pledge also states that "regardless of race language or religion ....based on justice and equality". So I believe that the government's ruling is incorrect