The following piece by Bangkok Post Editor is what I believe to be a fair and reasonable solution to the current crisis. I hope both Samak and the PAD follow what is proposed here:

We strongly disagree with Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's decision to declare a state of emergency as a means of ending the street demonstrations by the People's Alliance for Democracy. It is only another vain attempt to survive the political crisis he faces.
by Pattnapong Chantranontwong
Editor - Bangkok Post

Army chief Gen Anupong Paojinda, who heads the special emergency committee, deserves credit for stating clearly the army will step in only to prevent any further clashes between the People's Alliance for Democracy and the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship.

He said the continuing crisis is a political issue and should be solved by political processes, not by force.

The prime demand of the PAD is that Mr Samak step down; Mr Samak demands the PAD end its protest.

Mr Samak repeatedly proclaims the legitimacy of his government _ because it was elected.

It is true his People Power party won the most seats in the general election. But winning the election does not mean his government has a mandate to break the law.

Even disregarding the Election Commission's unanimous decision yesterday to recommend the dissolution of his party for election fraud, Mr Samak's cabinet has made several decisions considered to be in breach of the constitution. Even the qualifications of some of his cabinet members are doubtful.

The Constitution Court ruled that the joint communique with Phnom Penh on the Preah Vihear issue was a breach of the charter. The appointments of some people, allegedly involved in certain controversial cases, to the boards of Bank of Thailand and the Securities Exchange of Thailand are questionable. As are the PPP's efforts to amend the charter in favour of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and to help the party to avoid dissolution.

These moves are, in fact, not acceptable to the public. Although his government survived the censure debate in parliament, it does not mean it has done nothing wrong. It survived because his coalition has a large majority in the House. Even though we disagree with the PAD holding the country and the people to ransom _ by blocking the traffic, seizing Government House, closing three southern airports and planning strikes _ we agree that the PAD has every right to protest against the government.

However, if neither side agrees to a compromise then the crisis will be never-ending.

Mr Samak must admit he has committed many mistakes during his seven months in office, and they are enough for him to call it quits.

At the same time, the PAD must accept the principle of democracy. If Mr Samak steps down, his party still leads a coalition which controls the House and can legitimately form a new cabinet.

The other option is that Mr Samak dissolves the House and calls a general election. Again, the PAD must accept the outcome and let the winning party form a new government.

These options embody the democratic principle. We strongly disagree with any undemocratic options, be it a coup or the appointment of a non-elected government."