Early this week, a corruption watchdog urged the government to explain the Ministry of Justice's criteria in pardoning "big fish" -- referring to convicts in major corruption cases, many of whom recently had their jail terms substantially reduced.
The Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand (ACT) took aim at the remissions granted in December last year to high-ranking civil servants and former cabinet members who are currently in jail for the graft-plagued rice-pledging scheme pursued by the Yingluck Shinawatra administration.
Among those who saw their sentences reduced were former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyaprom, who saw his 48-year sentence slashed to 10 years and eight months; and his deputy Poom Sarapol, who will now serve a five-year jail sentence, instead of the original 36 years.
While the move undoubtedly cast a shadow over Thailand's judicial processes, it wasn't entirely unprecedented.
Thailand has consistently ranked low on global corruption indexes, despite successive governments declaring numerous wars against graft.
While the country's courts routinely hand out the maximum-allowable jail terms to those convicted of corruption, the public would often see the same courts roll back the jail terms of politicians, government officials and other famous figures -- many of whom have managed to walk free after serving only a fraction of their sentences.
In the aftermath of the Dec 16 pardon, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha ordered a probe into how Justice Minister Somsak Thepsuthin and the Department of Corrections managed to secure a royal pardon for those convicted for the rice-pledging scheme.
That probe was supposed to wrap up in one month, and its outcome was published on Jan 19. It wasn't a surprise to anyone that it didn't clear the air.
The Justice Ministry then formed yet another internal committee to study the matter. The committee held a meeting recently, but it still has no clear vision and mission.
Make no mistake -- everybody deserves forgiveness and a second shot at life. Moral qualms aside, sentence reductions help the government cope with overcrowding in prisons. However, this does not mean the Department of Corrections and the Justice Ministry have a blank cheque to free inmates as they please.
Under the current remission system, prisoners are categorised by the length of their jail terms and their behaviour in prison, but not by the crimes they were convicted for.
As such, inmates are entitled to remission regardless of how heinous their crimes were, which makes it easier for the Justice Ministry to reduce sentences and by extension, control prison populations.
The current remission criteria had been called into question before, when the case of Somkid Poompuang -- a serial rapist who had been jailed and pardoned, only to kill again in 2019 -- came to light.
The sentence reductions once again challenge these criteria, with many left wondering if the quick-and-easy approach undermines the overall fight against corruption.
The Justice Ministry and Department of Corrections need to make the pardon system more clear, transparent and accountable to the public.
Forgiveness may be a form of goodwill, but recklessly releasing those convicted of serious crimes will only backfire in the end.