Multi-anything societies will always have this problem. A society is either a single society or it’s a collection of societies with only gross geographic location in common. One of the things Malaysia badly needs to sort out is which one of its many sets of laws is superior to the others. One law for one person, and another for his neighbour is preposterous, and can only deepen divides.

Having said that, if devout Muslims wish to submit to Hudud, I see no reason why a superior federal law should not permit them to. States must choose the standard above which it trusts its citizens to choose for themselves, and below which it protects its citizens from their follies. I don’t believe there’s an absolute point that’s ‘right’ for such a standard. Malaysia pays scant regard to UN advice on law (read the Special Rapporteurs’ reports on Malaysia sometime: very interesting), so there’s no point in appealing to International norms before a ‘sky change’.

If federal law were to be superior, and was to permit Muslims to choose Hudud, federal appeal must be guaranteed, both to avoid unusually light sentences / miscarriages of justice (as defined by federal law) under Hudud, and also to permit those sentenced under Hudud the opportunity to avoid unusually harsh sentences (as defined by federal law). Such a scheme would allow devout Muslims to personally enjoy their religion to the full, while ensuring that all Malaysians get full federal protection from their fellow citizens.

I imagine any proposal to make Hudud ‘optional’ for Muslims in Malaysia will inflame some, but you cannot make a nation of equals out of enclaves following different rules. The machinery of state must work for all Malaysians, and ONLY all Malaysians.

I feel sorry for Pakatan Rakyat – a marriage of convenience can be difficult. Is there a good reason to campaign as a united entity? I’m not convinced the trade of clear objectives for larger mass was a profitable one.

“Speaking in one single voice should be the order of the day”
I disagree. There you go, we presumably want similar things, yet we speak with two voices. I spoke to a good number of voters in the last election, mostly because it seemed to me that none of my neighbours were going to vote. I cannot vote in Malaysia, my wife can, and my children have to wait for nearly 20 years. I didn’t recommend a party to vote for, I was only shocked that so many people who had so much time to complain had so little time to make the most trivial contribution a member of a democracy can make. While I was organising ICs to stations and neighbours to cars, I heard them talking about the voting process, the different parties involved, the baffling format of the polling slips, but not once ‘Pakatan Rakyat’.
Every neighbour I heard talking about the election were either voting for BN, or were talking about a single non-BN party. If they were talking about a single party, it was because of policies, because “that Mr X is such a nice man, he cares about us”, or for the inevitable reasons (not unique to Malaysia) of some kind of affiliation.
I’m not at all convinced by the ‘single voice’ argument – I think it’s dangerous to try to beat BN at its own game. It must be apparent (even if a person only gets their political knowledge from NST, Utusan et al) that divisions do exist in BN. To try to claim they don’t in PR is to stoop to a lower political level.
In some ways it would be easier for DAP and PAS to say “secular” and “hudud” agreeably while in opposition if they were not trying to pretend to be one homogeneous political entity. Rather than publicly papering over the cracks, they could use the opportunity to explain how a coalition might work in the future.
Cintanegara is perfectly right in this case, but not in a particularly important way. Many countries are run by coalition governments formed post-election, most of whom seem to do very well despite their pre-election policy differences.

“why DAP is against … whatever policies [apply only to] Muslim community”
Because, I presume, that they’re of the mind that one nation can only have one law. Having one law for one community, and another for everybody else is not fair. Not fair = more differences = more tension, forever and ever. And not all crimes are committed within communities. If a crime occurs between people of different communities, which community’s law should be applied?
As for freedom to practice religion – what aspect of practice of Islam runs counter to secular law? Secular law guarantees freedom of religion, so long as the practice of religion does not interfere uninvited with another citizen’s rights. I see no reason why Malaysian Muslims should not practice Hudud, so long as it isn’t a means of evading penalties due under federal law, and so long as subjects of hudud law personally consent to the imposition of Hudud.
I think the other parties in PR could easily agree to PAS championing federal Hudud-for-devout-Muslims, while maintaining it’s not “their cup of tea”. If there are never enough Malaysians to carry the vote, it’s a non-issue. If there are enough Malaysians to carry the vote, then I suspect there’ll be very long queues at KLIA.