Thailand Law Journal 2011 Fall Issue 2 Volume 14

4.3 Pardoning Power in the Reign of King Rama III

King Rama III (King Nang Klao) accessed the throne in 1824, and he ordered both the release of all prisoners and speedy hearings for all cases lodged in the courts, as tradition dictated. In this reign, presenting a petition to the king was easier than before because the king had familiarized himself with this task since his days as a royal prince in charge of receiving petitions. King Rama III knew how miserable his subjects felt as they tried simply to present a document, in pursuit of justice, to the king. He thought that, in the old days, people could petition the king only on the rare occasions when he exited the palace.

Therefore, in this reign, the king kindly originated a new custom: a person could present a petition by banging a big drum named Vinijayabheri (meaning "the drum of investigation") in the royal drum building in front of the Grand Palace. If anyone wanted to present the king a petition for a pardon or for any kind of justice, the chamberlain would have to unlock the drum building for that person, letting him or her hit the Vinijayabheri drum. The police on guard would bring the petitioner to the king (or to a prince or a member of the nobility whom the king had commanded to take charge). The king (or the king's substitute) would always hear the case and would justly judge without delay.⁵⁸

In the third reign of Rattanakosin, there were instances of royal pardons on some conditions. The record of Princess Narindradevi states,

There was a royal command to establish a committee to relieve people’s sufferings. If a tax or a fee was too high, the committee had to decrease it for the people's happiness. The king always heard the case and determined the deserved sentence himself. If the criminal pleaded guilty, and if the king feared that the criminal would commit a further crime, the king often granted him a pardon, but would order that the criminal's legs be tattooed, marks identifying this person as a former criminal.⁵⁹

Interestingly, together with his granting of royal pardons to criminals were King Rama Ill's frequent sermons to the criminals regarding Buddhist doctrine. This tradition reflected the idea of Dhamma Raja in the king's exercise of the pardoning power in the early Rattanakosin era. The royal command of King Rama III in 1837 states,

[His Majesty] mercifully considers that those criminals were his own subjects but that their poor instruction had led them to commit crimes, rob, to smoke opium, to drink alcohol, and so forth. They were treading a path to hell indeed. His Majesty is feeling such pity for these criminals that he grants them pardons, preaching to them about self-reform. From now on, the king wants criminals to turn away from wrongdoing, as the old proverb articulates: the trunk bends but the tip may be straight. If criminals reform themselves now, they may finally go to heaven. Because of the royal mercy, His Majesty commands Phra Sri Bhuriprijasrisalakshana, a royal scribe, to compose a royal sermon that rests on Buddhist doctrine and that teaches criminals to stop being recalcitrant. If these criminals can finally reform themselves, the king will receive them as swordsmen in the royal army.⁶⁰

4.4 Pardoning Power in the Reign of King Rama IV

The reign of King Rama IV (King Mongkut) was one of great transition in Thailand. Because he had been Prince Mongkut, the king had long been an ordained monk, so he had opportunities to mingle with commoners, including Westerners. Both Buddhist doctrine and his monk-related experiences made the king aware that the rigid royal power could build neither subjects' real loyalty nor lasting harmony.⁶¹ King Rama IV said, "People adore the king as a place of refuge. Whoever faces suffering will ask for the king's help as a baby cries for his or her parents' help. If the king believes that people adore him as a father adores his children, the king shall be faithfully kind to his people as though he were their real father indeed."⁶²

The Sukhothai concept of "father and son" was now playing a significant role in Thailand's governance. King Rama IV abrogated many old Ayudhya and early Rattanakosin laws and traditions that were barriers between the king and the subjects and that included such laws as the law prohibiting people from watching the king and other royals. The tradition of presenting a petition to the king had required that the petitioner be whipped 30 times before presenting a petition as proof that person was indeed in need of help, but King Rama IV abrogated this whipping process.⁶³

Furthermore, the king allowed people who experienced injustice from the courts, judges, or juries to easily present a petition to him because he realized that noblemen, especially in the courts, took advantage of suffering people. The king also realized that there were many unfair laws and traditions such as both the law that all men, until the age of 70, must perform labor for the king or nobles and the tradition among princes and police of mistreating commoners on a whim; thus, the king tried to address petitioners' grievances.⁶⁴
           
In the past, kings had not wanted to receive a petition by themselves and would require that whoever wanted to seek justice had to present a petition to his noble master first (all men had to be in the service of a royal or noble master): the master then would bring the petition to the court, and only if the court did not receive it would the master thus present the servant's petition to the king either through the Department of the Interior or by hitting the Vinijayabheri drum.⁶⁵ In the previous reign, King Rama III had not frequently left the palace, so it seemed impossible to a commoner to directly seek a pardon or help from the king. King Rama IV thus set the new rule that the king would come out to receive, by his hand, petitions from anyone every day before Buddhist days of worship (4 days a month). Prince Damrong, a son of King Rama IV, recorded the story about this new tradition:

[The king] graciously allowed people to present petitions without difficulty. He ordered that a pole be set up and that a robe hang from it along with a hook. The petitioner would attach the petition to the hook and prostrate him or herself near the pole. King Mongkut would come out to receive petitions four times a month (two times in the waxing period of the moon and two times in the waning period of the moon.). Then, the king would command any of his literate officers to read the petition at once. He would command the court to hear the case without delay. An person wanting to personally accuse an officer of King Mongkut might present a petition to King Pinklao instead.⁶⁶

This above statement shows that people could present a petition to King Pinklao—the second king (similar to the crown prince in Western tradition) —who was the younger brother of King Mongkut, as well.
           
In the fourth reign, when the king came out, the officer at the drum building would hit the Vinijayabheri Drum signaling people that it was now the time to present a petition. The king also allowed prisoners to present a petition through their own relatives or masters.⁶⁷ This tradition became the origin of the current way to present a petition to the king. However, if the king learned that the petitioner was being deceitful, he would punish the petitioner, in accordance with the old law. According to the 1852 royal announcement regarding the presentation of a petition, the king "graciously commanded that...if the king found that a petition was deceitful, the king would punish the petitioner. If-the petitioner deserved imprisonment, the king would imprison him. If the petitioner deserved freedom, the king would release him."⁶⁸

Nonetheless, later, the king realized that people could not reach the drum building easily and that a petitioner also had to pay a fee for hitting the drum. Thus, King Rama IV ordered that the Vinijayabhesi drum be moved to Sinkornkhan Ford in front of Sudhaisavan Hall (a building on the Grand Palace's east wall). On every 7th day and every 13th day of the waning moon and the waxing moon in the lunar calendar, the king commanded his officers to announce to ail people that the king would receive petitions. Sometimes, there were more than 20 petitions a day. During the reign of King Mongkut, most royals and noblemen were so afraid that their servants would allege wrongdoing to the king that they—the royal and the noblemen—dared not mistreat commoners.⁶⁹

The freedom to seek a justice from the king was prevalent. If King Rama IV knew that there was a restriction on the people's ability to present a petition, he would pay a special compensation to the poor petitioner and would reimburse the petitioner for the pencil-and-writing fee.⁷⁰ Also, the king was particularly attentive to petitions' style of writing. He proclaimed the royal standard for petition writing in 1854, suggesting that anybody uncertain of the appropriate petition-drafting form could come to the office of royal scribes for help.⁷¹

There is no evidence that, in this reign, the king granted general pardons. In any case, there were royal proclamations to pardon some particular persons who had repented by themselves; namely, the 1853 royal proclamation of a pardon for a repentant Buddhist monk who had committed a grave sin, and the 1854 royal proclamation of a pardon for a repentant gang boss.

Even on his death bed, the king asked his noblemen to take good care of his subjects: "If I die, please nourish our country well. Take good care of all monks and people so that they are happy. Please tell the new king, whoever he might be, to be vigilantly attentive in receiving his subjects' petitions. Let people reach the king easily, as was the case under my reign."⁷²

These dying king's words clearly exhibit the great influence of the Dhamma Raja concept on King Rama IV's mindset. In the fourth reign, the Dhamma Raja concept brightly shined in the judicial system, altering old styles of presenting a petition to the king into a novel style.

5. Epilogue

In conclusion, the royal pardoning power of Thai kings from the Sukhothai era to the early Rattanakosin era developed under changing conditions in each reign. Whichever concept could serve the government well the king would choose, and that concept would prevail. In the Sukhothai era, the father-and-children concept was popular, and the Dhamma Raja concept later gained credence. During the Ayudhya era, the concepts of Deva Raja and of the Lord of Life prevailed. The king of Dhonburi reintroduced the Sukhothai concept of father and children together with the Dhamma Raja concept. In the Rattanakosin era, the Dhamma Raja concept seemed to play ever more significant roles. During Thailand's transitional period that coincided with the reign of King Rama V, Thailand experienced the greatest reforms of its judicial and legal systems; however, the king still emphasized the concept of Dhamma Raja in the promulgation of laws and in the granting of pardons.