Following his return to Thailand in August 2023 from a lengthy self-imposed exile, Thaksin was given an eight-year prison sentence, which was commuted to one year almost immediately after his sentencing, but he didn’t spend any time in jail because of his health problems.

What’s interesting about both men is that they continue to wield enormous political influence, despite their criminal convictions.

Najib remains “Bossku” (“my boss”) to his legions of fans in Malaysia, while the current Thai prime minister was quoted as saying that “everyone in the government is ready to listen” if Thaksin wished to offer political advice.

Almost all countries have some form of mechanism for granting pardons to convicted criminals.

Why this is the Year of the Lóng, not dragon, for many Chinese

The practice of granting amnesty began early on in China. The first recorded instances of kings and lords pardoning criminals in their domains occurred during the Spring and Autumn Period and the subsequent Warring States Period (770BC-221BC).

It was in the early years of the Chinese empire, in the Western Han dynasty (206BC-AD9), that royal pardons became institutionalised.

Throughout China’s imperial period, which lasted just over 2,000 years, countless convicted criminals, whether they were incarcerated as prisoners or slaves, were pardoned and freed in the name of the emperor.

There were four types of royal pardons.

The first was the grand amnesty, in which all the prisoners across the empire were released. This was usually accompanied by a large, solemn ceremony conducted in the presence of the emperor at the capital.

The second type was the partial amnesty that freed prisoners from one or a few selected locations, such as provinces and districts.

The third type was the reduction of jail sentences or punishments.

The fourth type was the special amnesty, where the emperor pardoned specific individuals, usually members of his own family or senior officials. This could be done posthumously, where a person who had died as a criminal would be pardoned and sometimes have their name cleared.

The ostensible purpose of royal amnesties was to demonstrate the mercy of the emperor, but I am disinclined to believe that. Where compassion for others was concerned, emperors did not have good track records.

Amnesties, especially the fourth type, served a political purpose in balancing the power between rival factions in government, or even between the emperor and his ministers.

Grand and partial amnesties had a social function as a valve to release pent-up pressures in society, and an economic one by adding manpower to a depleted labour force in times of unrest.

High pay hasn’t stopped corruption in Singapore, just as in imperial China

Whatever the intentions were, royal pardons were always “good optics” for the rulers.

Perhaps realising this, some Chinese emperors became profligate in their mercy, dispensing amnesties too frequently on occasions such as their enthronements, birthdays, when they had a new empress, a new heir apparent, after they put down an armed rebellion, and any other happy occasion imaginable.

An unintended outcome was the people losing respect for the law and the judicial system. Getting caught for stealing those gold ingots was no big deal if one could be pardoned and released after serving a few short years.