This is the moment of truth Kasit can't flunk

Resignation, in the Thai political context, never entails grace. Yet this doesn't mean there's no "graceful exit" in Thailand when political problems are concerned. The exit is always there; it's just that very few people have ever taken it. Former Bangkok governor Apirak Kosayodhin is one of them: he made little fuss over a developing legal case and stepped down shortly after his landslide re-election last year. Most other politicians who have quit in troublesome circumstances did so not because they thought they should, but because they simply ran out of options.

As someone strongly associated with a political movement that cherishes "new politics", time is running out for Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, who is caught between a "graceful" way out and what his opponents would want to see, a newspaper headline saying that he "resigns in disgrace". The longer he waits, the smaller the window of opportunity for a soft, gracious landing and the bigger the possibility for an old-style departure to be marked by rivals' boos and jeers.

If he resigns now, it doesn't mean that he is guilty. It will simply mean he accepts that the legal controversy surrounding him and last year's seizure of Suvarnabhumi Airport will be better addressed with him outside the corridors of power. It will only mean that he has completely broken free from the politics of old, when resignation was nothing but a shameful admission of guilt, something to avoid at all costs.

If he resigns now, his opponents may jump for joy. They may point to his resignation and say: "See! We told you he was guilty". But Kasit will have to let them. Guilty or not, it's his duty to show that new politics means political courage, and political courage means facing the consequences of one's own beliefs or actions with one's head held high.

Kasit has the right to defend the airport incident. A lot of People's Alliance for Demcoracy activists or sympathisers still are, but they are doing it from the same position as those who believe the airport blockade was very wrong. Yes, Kasit can stand for what he believes, but it's better for him to do so as an ordinary citizen and not as a representative of the Thai government. He may think this is unfair, but the truth is that seizing an international airport to advance a political cause is too controversial to involve a government ruling a deeply divided nation.

His involvement in the airport seizure made him a Cabinet liability from day one. That Kasit has lasted this long is owing to many factors, but now that the issue has come to a head again, the minister has a decision to make. As an ordinary citizen, he can advocate any contentious ideal or activity he likes, but as a foreign minister, what can he say if, for instance, red-shirt protesters take control of Hua Lampong and vow to block the country's rail services until the government resigns?

He may say "same means, different purposes", or that the red-shirt movement might want to give its enemies a taste of their own medicine but with truly ill intentions. This argument, however, ignores another major factor: same means, different purposes and similar outcomes. No matter how such an action is explained, defended or even romanticised, the bottom line is that innocent people are affected, only God knows how much.

We as a nation have already gone through this debate. What's new is Kasit himself. It used to be "Is it right or wrong to take over and shut down an airport to achieve a political goal?" The question, unsettled as it is, has been elevated to "Is it right or wrong to have someone who thinks an airport seizure is right sitting in the Cabinet?" And no matter how wide-ranging the debate has been, in the end it will come down to the man at the centre of it. Kasit himself will have to figure out the answer to the second question.

The airport issue has been wrongly highlighted for its "terrorism" aspect, and Kasit is wrongly defending his decision to stay put on grounds that he is "not a terrorist". The simple fact is that he has advocated an activity that caused obvious and untold ordeals to a large number of people, raising the question of whether he can do that on the other side of the fence, where his responsibility now is to guard the airport, not allow it to be invaded. Kasit was out in the forefront of political activism in the first place in fighting conflict of interest, so the most important thing is that he not let conflict of interest come back and get him. Otherwise he will risk having all this, the airport seizure included, end in vain.