He took a big gamble by making a U-turn to allow the opposition to grill him in a censure motion.

But as it turned out, Premier Samak Sundaravej might have miscalculated - badly.

Instead of what he claims to be a below-the-belt blow from the "street gang", he might get a double, fatal blow from within and without Parliament.

Samak might have thought that by agreeing, however reluctantly, to spar with his political rivals in the House, he could neutralise the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), whose month-long street rally has threatened to undermine both his premiership and the administration.

But the Democrats' verbal salvos in the House on Tuesday and yesterday against Samak's four-month-old rule could prove to be much more devastating than the PAD's harsh rhetoric. The two-pronged attack will paralyse Samak politically. His departure is a question of when, not if.

The first day's debate over the questionable circumstances surrounding the Thai government's hasty and murky decision to offer "active support" to Cambodia's move to inscribe the Preah Vihear Temple on the World Heritage List was more than just the normal filibustering by opposition politicians.

Samak and Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama were apparently put on the defensive. The Democrat MPs were spurred on by an eloquent and hard-hitting juggernaut of an attack by leader of the opposition Abhisit Vejjajiva. He managed to lure Samak into swallowing the bait by raising the issue of national betrayal and political debts.

Abhisit knew exactly where to hit Samak to elicit the most emotional reaction. For it is now - when the old injured lion is attacked, during this the most vulnerable part of his political life - that he will react most ferociously, and therefore most irrationally.

Abhisit, towards the end of his 165-minute opening onslaught, plunged the sword into Samak and twisted it to ensure the greatest damage and pain:

"Mr Prime Minister, if you now decide to betray the former premier [Thaksin Shinawatra] by only half of what you did to M.R. Seni Pramoj [former leader of the Democrat Party], the country would certainly stand to benefit tremendously…."

Abhisit on the first day of the debate

That did it. Samak became apoplectic. Of course, he knew that Abhisit was trying to indicate that he had betrayed the man who had played a major role in giving birth to his political life.

Of course, he knew the opposition leader was accusing him of spending the first four months in office as premier trying to repay political debts to ex-premier Thaksin.

Those in the know, of course, were reminded once again that Samak had made a name for himself as a promising politician when he was recruited into the Democrat Party under M.R. Seni's leadership. And those who follow history also know that M.R. Seni was the chief legal adviser on the Thai side defending the Preah Vihear sovereignty case against Cambodia 46 years ago - an issue that is now pitting Samak against the party of one of his great benefactors.

"Let me make it clear right here in the House: I don't owe former prime minister Thaksin any political debt. In fact, it's the other way round. Thaksin has to repay a political debt to me," Samak shouted.

Samak didn't elaborate on how Thaksin now owes him a debt. But that statement alone was enough to bring smiles to suspicious minds.

Perhaps, the two aren't quite sure who's done whom a favour in this increasingly complicated and convoluted political game.

The Democrats, however, failed to follow up on that counter-attack, hoping perhaps to pick up more ammunition for future battles that are certain to happen in due course.

Samak won't leave the 35-hour no-confidence debate in the House unscathed. He won't get any credit for agreeing at the last minute to let the opposition grill him - since it was seen as an anti-PAD ploy, making virtue out of political necessity.

The wounds inflicted on him by the opposition are deep and serious and the "street gang" - as he calls the PAD protestors - won't give up their marathon rally just because the prime minister has decided to play his House card.

The coalition partners in his government may be compelled by political expedience to vote for him for their very survival. But the political injuries won't heal easily.

Samak may have won the vote in the House but he has lost the confidence. He may have won the battle but all indications are that he will lose the war.