Abhisit, Vejjajiva, Thailand, Deep South, autonomy

The Bangkok Post (actually, it is from an AFP report) on October 28, 2009 entitled "Thai PM backs autonomy for troubled south"

Razak said in a newspaper interview published on Monday that Thailand should offer "some form" of autonomy to the region, where more than 3,900 people have been killed since separatist violence erupted in January 2004.

In response, Abhisit said: "That's the right approach.

"My government is working to make it materialise and in early December I and my Malaysian counterpart will visit the southern region," he told reporters.
...
"Thailand is supporting this approach but it's not an independent region. It does not contradict the constitution, but instead allows more public participation in the form of a local assembly," he [Thai government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn] told reporters.

The Bangkok Post on November 5, 2009 entitled "PM: No autonomy for South":

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has told parliament that the government disagreed with the idea of establishing autonomous areas in lower South, as it was not a solution to the problem.

Mr Abhisit was responding to a question from Puea Thai MP for Narathiwat Waemahadi Waedaoh.

He asked about the government’s plans to decentralise administrative power in the three southernmost provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat.

He also asked Mr Abhisit to clarify to all MPs a news report in Malaysia that he had agreed to discuss the establishment of autonomous areas in the three border provinces with Malaysian prime minister Rajib Razak.

Mr Abhisit said the Malaysian media report was without foundation. He did not support the the idea of autonomous zones in in he far South. 
...
He admitted he really did not understand Puea Thai chairman Chavalit Yongchaiyudh's rather vague “Pattani City” idea.

BP: It is possible to be for one form of autonomy, but not another. However, when asked about the general idea of autonomy, he says he is far it and will discuss it with the Malaysian PM. His close aide, Panitan, then confirms this and talks about further decentralization. Now, when Abhisit is asked in parliament, he says no and that it was not a solution. Yet, a week before, autonomy was the "right approach". He refers to Chavalit's idea of being vague (although Chavalit actually has some more specifics in the book he wrote), but what about Panitan's talk of more participation, isn't this equally vague as there are no specifics too? Isn't providing more power to local communities a form of autonomy? We are talking about differing shades of grey here, but Abhisit wants to appear like black and white.