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
The Heart of the Matter!
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post The Heart of the Matter! 
I have been asked to publish an exchange of emails between one of our supporters, David Pearce, and Chris Edge at the Foreign Office.

It is our view that this exchange highlights the very heart of the matter and of our case. Put the kettle on (or head to the fridge for a coldie), and read the exchange which is so fundamental to our case.

-----Original Message-----

From: David Pearce [ mailto:*********@hotmail.co.uk

Sent: 07 November 2006 09:18
To: chris.edge@fco.gov.uk
Subject: Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal (PJM)


I have recently had the honour to receive the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal and would like the following answered:-

When the PJM was announced in 2004 and then in 2005 the Australian and New Zealand Governments accepted the medal (for wear), looking at British Medal rules and the history of them being applied, I had reasonable expectations of receiving an honourable medal that I could wear honourably. The British then rewrote the rules and my reasonable expectations were dashed by them. Do you not consider that inequitable and potentially infringing on my human rights?

If it was right for the Russian 40th Anniversary Medal to be worn (inaugurated in 1985, unrestricted acceptance in 1995, and it was a double medal) why is it not right for the PJM to be worn?

I want to be able to wear the medal that has honourably been awarded to me. I am no longer a member of the armed forces but I did do my bit in 1963 to 1965. Now is the time for the Government to do their bit and give us the right to wear this medal.

David Pearce ex Royal Navy
(Full address supplied)

-----End -----


----- Next ----

From: <chris.edge@fco.gov.uk
To: <*******@hotmail.co.uk
Subject: RE: Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal (PJM)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:47:28 -0000

Dear Mr Pearce

Thank you for your e-mail.

I can assure you that the rules governing the accepting and wearing of non-British awards were not rewritten in any way for considering the request from the Malaysian authorities to present the PJM. Far from it.

An exception was made to the rules to allow the Malaysians to present the PJM and, for those eligible, to receive it. Without this exception it is very unlikely that the PJM would have been presented.

Each request from a foreign government to present a medal to British citizens is treated on a case by case basis. The fact that a similar application (e.g. for the Russian 40th Anniversary medal) has been approved in the past should not be taken as implying that permission will be granted for other requests.

As you may know, in the light of the many points raised by veterans and other in the past few months on the PJM and the recommendations of the HD Committee, the committee is again considering the PJM. I hope that the results of the consideration process will be known soon.

Yours sincerely,
Chris Edge
Honours Secretary
Foreign and Commonwealth Office

-----End -----


----- Next ----


"David Pearce" <********@hotmail.co.uk>
28/11/2006 15:58

To: chris.edge@fco.gov.uk

Subject RE: Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal (PJM)

Chris,

In reply to your e-mail dated Friday 24th November 2006.

"I can assure you that the rules governing the accepting and wearing of non-British awards were not rewritten in any way for considering the request from the Malaysian authorities to present the PJM. Far from it."

Chris, did the HD Committee not respond to the Foreign Secretary's request to review rules in the light of the PJM? And did they not subsequently rewrite the 1969 Regulations and place the reissued rules in the Commons Library on the 21st November 2005? Would you not consider this re-writing rules following Jack Straw's request for rules to be reviewed specifically in the context of the Malaysian medal?

And "An exception was made to the rules to allow the Malaysians to present the PJM and, for those eligible, to receive it."

Also, Chris, can you advise on the following, please? You say that the rules were not re-written in any way in respect of the PJM (see my question above) and yet the Ministerial Statement specifically refers to the new November 2005 rules, as confirmed by you and the Cabinet office, and the Statement also refers to the 'double medal' rule that was first seen in the November 2005 Foreign Decoration rules. Would you not agree that, to the layman, this appears to be a case of earlier rules being reissued with new provisions included and then those new rules referred to in a formal Ministerial Statement relating to specifically to the PJM recommendation, and therefore this is very much a case of rules being rewritten when considering a specific medal request? I would be grateful if you could explain your interpretation where it differs from mine.

"Without this exception it is very unlikely that the PJM would have been presented."

Finally, I think that one of the issues that veterans are concerned about is that the waiving of two new rules ("new" in so far as they appear together for the first time in the November rules) so that a medal can be accepted and then the invoking of the same rules to stop it being worn is a grievous attack upon the status of the medal and the quality of the service British men and women provided to Malaysia - as opposed to all other Commonwealth citizens who may wear their PJM. Indeed, that two-pronged attack detracts entirely from any meaningful acknowledgement of British veterans' service and is seen by many as a spiteful act by the Government. I know Australia and New Zealand have their own Honours System but it is still clear that the British are making a judgement that impinges on the honourable status of the PJM and the honourable service of it veterans. Would it not have been better to reject the PJM under the existing 1969 rules and rewrite them later if necessary (at least the PJM would have retained its honourable status) or to accept the medal on an unrestricted basis by waiving the 1969 rules (something you have done on a number of occasions before).

Much of our knowledge has emerged after the Statement and so there is still time for the Honours and Decorations Committee to rectify the situation. I accept they can't stop the medal being issued now, but they could give it back its rightful and honourable status by confirming that formal permission, to wear the medal they now have, is no longer withheld from British citizens. What do you think? It would certainly create an immense sense of goodwill between all parties.

I look forward to your soonest reply

David Pearce ex Royal Navy

----- End ----

We think that those messages expose the heart of the problem. It is all about openness and honesty. How can you possibly be asked to review rules by a senior Government Minister, rewrite them, add a few fundamental tweaks, reissue the new rules, use them against the PJM, issue a Statement in Parliament to confirm all of that ... and then try and say you haven't done it. Not guilty, yer honour!

We await the reply from Chris with great interest.

Barry

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