There’s no doubt that the most exciting time to read Thailand blogs is during a crisis. It was the same when the coup happened and there was just as much buzz when the Bangkok bombs exploded. When it kicks off in Thailand, bloggers jump to action, debate ensues and people interact.

With the crisis in Bangkok in a state of limbo, one thing I’ve noticed is that some people are drawing lines in the sand and composing an image of two sides: on one side is the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) while on the other is the Samak government. Although the showdown is between those two groups, for the general public it’s not as simple.

For those who support the PAD it may well be that they are also against the Samak government, but it doesn’t work both ways. When I wrote my earlier post condemning the actions of the PAD, I wasn’t stating my support of the Samak government. It’s not even about the lesser of two evils. The PAD is not a political party in opposition to the government – it’s just a mob.

I made a few comments on Twitter and other places about how I hoped Samak would not resign. I was also skeptical about the so-called rumors that spread about his impending resignation. If Samak is to call it quits, it should not be from pressure by the PAD. The PAD has in many ways exposed some of the frailties of Samak and his government, but that is not justification enough for Thailand’s elected prime minister to step down.

Opposing PAD and hoping Samak weathers this particular storm does not mean supporting the government in general. The real question is, are PAD’s actions justified? If they are not then expecting Samak to step down as a result of what the PAD has done is the same as supporting PAD in the first place.

If the prime minister were to step down every time a group of radicals gets together and tries to hold the country to ransom, what’s to stop it happening whenever this country elects a new government?