Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Wearing Foreign Medals by ex servicemen
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Medal News June 2006 
The latest issue of this magazine has just arrived through my letter box and it contains an interesting article. I know that I have mentioned this before, but I thought it was worth raising again, especially if the representatives of those who serve on the HD Committee are keeping a watch on this Forum - and I sincerely hope they are. Perhaps they could then explain the logic behind the different descisions.
"On November 23, 2005 a notice appeared in the London Gazette announcing that Her Majesty had been pleased to approve that members of her armed forces who are eligible to receive from the Sultan of Oman the 35th Renaissance Medal (35th National Day Medal) in recognition of their services whether on loan or contractural duties at the date of the Sultanate's National Day in November 2005, may accept and wear the medal with unrestricted permission."


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: Medal News June 2006 
George F wrote:
I think all subscribers would agree, the double-medaling argument is nothing but a load of spin


I agree with all that ... and let's not forget 28 Comwel Brigade! They were essentially 'on loan' but most never got a medal.


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: Medal News June 2006 
George F wrote:
"I have also been invited to help with the fight to receive and wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia. I declined as I oppose it. There have already been three British Medals (with six clasps) and three Commonwealth Medals covering most of the same period. Again this is my view, not a result of any external pressure, rather the opposite." (written by Lt Col Tinson in a letter to Medal News)


What concerns me is that this statement, clearly intended as a balancing act against an earlier criticism in Medal News that Lt Col Tinson erred on the 'generous' side of accepting awards, seems to imply that we are a bunch of gong chasers. I am sure that that is not what he meant because in his book he produces an enlightened and pragmatic approach to the problems endemic in the British system of Orders, Decorations and Medals.

I would like to make the following points regarding Col A R Tinson’s letter to Medal News:

1. He seems to fall into the same trap as the very establishment of which he is critical in his book - he is judging a Foreign award (the PJM) by British Medals criteria. The former is administered by the FCO, the latter by the MoD. While some criteria overlap between the two Departments, there are others where they take opposing views, for example in connection with Commemorative/Anniversary awards.

2. He falls into another trap he quotes against the establishment in his book by using spurious data to support the case for denying medals without justification - he infers nine medals coincide with the PJM. They do not.

3. The fallacious reference to nine awards specifically gives the impression that those who support the wearing of the PJM are gong-chasers or supporters of gong-chasers. I am surprised at that because he knows his medals. Consequently I can only conclude that he is trying to make a point (detrimental to our cause) in order to justify something he said in Medal News - and the PJM is again the innocent victim of other people’s problems.

4. The nine awards he refers to are probably those shown at http://www.fight4thepjm.org/documents/Medals_awarded_Malaysia_1948-1966.pdf

5. Of those awards only four apply and, as noted on the above reference, the result is that the majority of those eligible for the PJM are not eligible for a British award.

Colonel Tinson’s letter is fundamentally misleading in relation to the PJM and, if read without an explanation will encourage some to take an anti-PJM stance. This would not have been deliberate - he is an honourable man. But the letter, which will be read with glee by the MoD (Richard Coney) and the FCO (Chris Edge), is damaging and I hope he writes again to set the record straight.

The PJM is a Foreign award and should be assessed accordingly. The scope of the PJM is wider than any British medallic award. Double-medalling is a specious argument.

Barry


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum