But if a prime minister proposes putting up with a thief, you begin to wonder what he is up to. And when the prime minister in charge of managing a country during an unprecedented crisis talks like a compassionate monk even as the mugger goes on a rampage, you are inevitably forced to reach one of two conclusions: he is either naive and unfit for his political position, or a super strategist capable of persuading even the most corrupt politician to turn over a new leaf.

I must confess that I am not sure where Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont fits in this regard - whether he is in fact a hopeless political failure as a preacher or a surprising candidate for the title of Thailand's political genius. And if he happens to fall somewhere in the middle, then I am afraid we are in for some real political volatility.

Surayud told reporters in what was dubbed "The-Premier-Tells-All" press conference the other day that the idea that "monks and thugs" couldn't live with one another was clearly wrongheaded. The opposite, he insisted, was true.

"We are Buddhists. We must believe that a monk must be able to persuade a thug to revert to good behaviour …," the premier declared.

If he was in fact talking about national reconciliation, he was obviously straying off the mark. Reconciliation, however charitable one may profess to be while pursuing it, would have to be a two-way street. Both the monk and the thug would have to agree to some kind of a trade-off to be able to claim that they were on the path to a compromise.

Surayud's extreme munificence isn't going to satisfy anybody. Not the coup leaders who installed him there six months ago hoping he would use his supposed "iron fist in a velvet glove" to stamp out Thaksinomics once and for all. (They wanted a tough ex-soldier to fix the thug - not a kind-hearted monk who wastes his time trying to convert the thief.)

Not the members of the People's Alliance for Democracy who have made no secret of their "conspiracy theory" that the interim prime minister has struck a "secret pact" with the ex-premier, which would absolve Thaksin of all the serious political offences that brought about the coup in the first place. (They obviously demand a monk who keeps his monastery clear of potential thieves - not a monk ready to engage in a long-winded conversation with a thug.)

Not the remnants of the Thaksin regime who are inclined towards the belief that he is too beholden to the anti-Thaksin movement and is being pushed around to obstruct their activities. (They charge that the abbot is being unduly influenced by the monks around him against a popular ex-chief priest whose alleged "sins" are still being investigated.)

Not the middle-class who have high hopes that the interim leader will take the lead in initiating genuine political reforms that would do away with money politics, corruption and nepotism. (They feel that Surayud, arguably a good and honest man with all the necessary credentials, is probably the "right man at the wrong time for the wrong job" or, more precisely, the "right man for the right job at the wrong time" and therefore unfit for such a tempestuous period when a major crackdown is happening against all proven political thieves and suspected social thugs.)

It's controversial enough that the monk thinks he can convert the thug through his "soft" approach.

What happens if in reality it turns out the other way - that "the thug" has in fact been trying to convert "the monk".

Imagine the calamity that would befall the country if "the monk" doesn't even realise that it's the other way around.

Suthichai Yoon