Vietnamese kings humbled themselves and admitted their mistakes.

The king was supreme, considered the Son of Heaven and always right, yet some had the "courage" to admit their mistakes to their subjects when they realized they were wrong.

King Le Thanh Tong apologized to his ministers.

Le Thanh Tong (1442 - 1497) was the fifth king of the Early Le Dynasty and is considered one of the wisest kings in Vietnamese history. During his 38-year reign, Dai Viet flourished in all aspects – economy, culture, society, education, and military – becoming a powerful nation.

According to historians, besides his intelligence, King Le Thanh Tong was very eager to learn and open to new ideas. He even did not hesitate to admit his mistakes and apologize to his officials. The Dai Viet History Chronicle recounts that on one occasion, Nguyen Ba Ky, the Grand Scholar of the Imperial Academy and concurrently the Grand Academician of the Hall of Civilization, frankly submitted a petition complaining that the king favored superficial and useless learning methods in his writings, neglecting classical texts and history.

King Le Thanh Tong, without taking offense, replied: "If I favored flowery language and disregarded the classics and history, what other books would there be? Considering myself and your words, the four words 'vanity and uselessness' truly encompassed loyalty. Yet, I wrote an essay to refute them, and I was indeed at fault. At that moment, you promptly dissuaded me, and I did not hold a grudge."

King Lê Thánh Tông, valuing Nguyễn Bá Ký's talent and virtue, bestowed upon him the title "Vân Phong tiên sinh" (Mr. Vân Phong). Upon his death, the king sent the Chief of Ceremonies, Phạm Hổ, with a decree stating: "You have served the king faithfully, maintained your integrity, and been by my side day and night for six years. Even in your dying moments, your loyalty remains unwavering."

Bronze statue of King Le Thanh Tong. Photo: Wikipedia

On another occasion, in 1467, there was a rebellion in the Northeast region. General Le Hoi and Admiral Khuat Da led troops to quell the rebellion but were defeated and brought to trial. The Minister of Justice cited the eight categories of people eligible for leniency (eight types of people whose sentences are considered for reduction) and intended to pardon them.

The Imperial Censor Tran Xac agreed and reported to the king: "Historically, only those guilty of heinous crimes and treason are not granted the eight-point pardon; never before have officials who commit ordinary crimes been denied this privilege." Le Thanh Tong replied: "Military law is singular, not dual. What Xac says is merely sophistry and deception; Xac should be punished for this crime."

However, immediately afterward, the king issued a decree admitting his mistake: "I falsely accused you of being a debator trying to mislead people; that was a slip of the tongue. Now, if you have any good plans, please tell me. It would be like sweet rain during a drought, or like a boat arriving when I need to cross the river. Please remember this."

Historians assess that Censor Tran Xac was an upright man, with a firm grasp of the law, and dared to speak words that were not pleasing to the Emperor. In a moment of haste, Emperor Le Thanh Tong did not uphold the usual rules of conduct, but the Emperor still reflected, bravely admitted his mistake, and sincerely asked to hear further frank opinions, which is very admirable.

King Quang Trung admitted his mistake.

Quang Trung (1753-1792) was a king with many glorious military achievements and was also praised for his brilliance and wisdom. Among the many stories about his outstanding talent, there is an incident that shows the king's open-mindedness. This is his response to the "complaint" petition from the villagers of Van Chuong in Thang Long.

According to historian Tran Van Giap's documents, in 1789, after King Quang Trung defeated the Qing army, the people of Van Chuong village (near the Temple of Literature) submitted a petition. The petition mentioned that in 1786, the Temple of Literature in Thang Long was burned down, and the stone steles were toppled and scattered everywhere.

The petition clearly states: "The Doctoral Examination Stele is innocent and blameless / Yet it suffers collateral damage from the city fire / The stele is trampled and destroyed / The stele house is burned to ashes." The petition also implicitly criticizes King Quang Trung: "A long-standing civilization / Sadly, it has not yet had the honor of welcoming Your Majesty's visit."

Upon reading the petition, Emperor Quang Trung was surprised because it was not written in the usual format, but rather in rhyming Nôm script by a Confucian scholar, according to his own preferences. Furthermore, although the petition raised suspicions about Trịnh Khải's army destroying the stele, it was actually a way to avoid mentioning the Tây Sơn army's destruction of the Temple of Literature, thus avoiding offending the emperor. The petition also subtly referred to the emperor as "Your Majesty" instead of "Your Highness," implicitly suggesting a lack of submission.

Statue of Emperor Quang Trung at the Quang Trung Museum (Binh Dinh province). Photo: Wikipedia

King Quang Trung did not ignore or send someone to investigate who dared to write that petition and who participated in demanding the restoration of the stele. The emperor immediately wrote on the petition: "I do not blame the peasants / I only fear the Confucian scholar / Who is so audacious as to dare to address the King as 'Your Majesty'! Who is this Confucian scholar? I order the Ministry to inquire, and the people will confess."

King Quang Trung did not question further but went straight to the crucial issue that needed to be resolved, specifically by immediately issuing an imperial decree and a written admonition on that Nôm petition: "Enough! Enough! Enough! The matter is settled / Let all blame me! Soon we will rebuild the country / The stele of the temple will be erected again in the magnificent palace / Has the Trinh dynasty's power crumbled? / Do not blame Trinh Khai, for it will be unjust for generations to come."

According to historians, in response to the people's "complaint," the king did not beat around the bush but frankly accepted responsibility and promised to repair the Temple of Literature. With this, King Quang Trung truly demonstrated the courage and straightforwardness of a wise ruler.

King Ly Cao Tong issued a decree of repentance.

As the seventh king of the Ly Dynasty, Cao Tong (1173-1210) ascended the throne at the young age of 3 with the assistance of Grand Marshal To Hien Thanh. As he grew up and directly ruled the country, Cao Tong indulged in hunting, his governance and laws were unclear, he plundered the people's wealth to build numerous palaces, and forced the common people into servitude, leading to widespread banditry and robbery.

The book Dai Viet History Chronicle Complete Edition records: "The king indulged in excessive revelry, the administration was unclear, bandits swarmed like bees, famine lasted for years, and the Ly dynasty's foundation declined from then on...". It wasn't until 1207 that the king, witnessing the bandits, repented and issued a decree acknowledging his mistakes.

The book "Dai Viet Su Luoc" (Brief History of Dai Viet) records that imperial decree: "I, though young, had to shoulder great responsibilities, residing in the highest palace, unaware of the people's hardships. I listened to the words of petty individuals and caused resentment among my subordinates. If the people resent me, whom can I rely on? Now I will correct my mistakes and bring about change with the people. Anyone whose land or property has been confiscated will have it returned."

With his proclamation of repentance, Ly Cao Tong is considered the first king in the history of Vietnamese feudalism to "dare" to humble himself and apologize to the people. However, 1207 marked the final years of his life. Three years later, Ly Cao Tong died amidst national turmoil, and the court relied heavily on the power of the Tran dynasty. Therefore, historians view this king's proclamation of apology as belated and merely an apology for the sake of apologizing, without implementing any corrective measures, or because the situation was too bad to change.

According to VNE