• 
• 

 The prime minister and his ruling People Power Party (PPP) have since made known their intention to push for amendments to the Constitution to curb the power of judges.

Samak claimed the democratically elected government had been prevented from doing its job properly by what he described as excessive powers wielded by the judiciary.

It is within the rights of the administration and legislature to initiate constitutional amendment, which would change the rules of the game, provided they successfully get Parliament to approve it.

It is obvious Samak and the ruling PPP are not happy with the current Constitution. Like the previous charter of 1997, it gives the Constitution Court, the Administrative Court, and Supreme Court of Justice's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions and Election Division sweeping powers to adjudicate a wide range of issues that can have a direct impact on politicians and parties and the way they exercise executive and legislative powers.

These include issues concerning the electoral process, public policy questions and political controversies, which the Samak government has got itself caught up in.

The Election Division of the Supreme Court has just found one of top PPP executives, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, guilty of electoral fraud, raising an ominous prospect of party dissolution.

The Administrative Court has issued an injunction, suspending the Cabinet's endorsement of Cambodia's map of Preah Vihear temple and a joint declaration in support of Cambodia's bid for its inclusion on Unesco's World Heritage list. Samak has been complaining loudly about his PPP-led government being demonised and pushed around.

Some PPP members openly criticised what they described as politicisation of the Constitution Court and Administrative Court.

However, Samak and PPP lawmakers knew better to stop short of criticising verdicts handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice or making any direct accusation against it, for fear of being held in contempt.

But that did not stop them from crowing about their political legitimacy because they are directly elected by the people, as if winning elections by whatever means - including vote-buying and electoral fraud - was the only thing that counts.

There are good reasons why judges should not be required to run for office the way politicians are. Judges are supposed to deliver justice without fear of reprisals and without the need to seek favour from anyone.

The judiciary, though not directly elected by the people, can also be made accountable to the public in other ways.

The judiciary's public accountability lies in the way they adjudicate cases fairly and with a high degree of precision in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law, and deliver in a timely manner judgements that will stand the test of time and public scrutiny - and perhaps even criticism.

But a call made by politicians for judges to stay off politics is misguided, if not downright subversive.

Politicians and political parties that do not cheat in elections, do not steal taxpayers' money, do not suppress civil liberties and do not violate human rights should have no fear of the judiciary and the ongoing judicialisation of politics.

Judicialisation of politics refers to a process in which judges become more involved in the active protection of people's constitutional rights and, in the Thai context, it counterbalances the evil of money politics that continues to dictate who gets to rule the country.

This process is vital at a time Thailand's political system has yet to fully establish the rule of law on which to build its fledgling democracy.