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
Veterans minister's letter is full of inconsistencies.
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post My response to Mark Harper 
Gerald Law
6 Knole Close, Crabbet Park, Worth, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 7GA
Telephone/Fax: 01293-885121, Mobile: 07970-935237, Email: GLAW686677@aol.com

Mr Mark Harper MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

17 April 2006

Your Reference: LDN3958

Pingat Jasa Malaysia

Dear Mr Harper

Thank you for your letter concerning the above subject. I must point out that you appear not to be fully acquainted with the facts as they exist, and that your claim to support British veterans has the same hollow ring that all of your Parliamentary colleagues have shown, on all sides of the political divide, when dealing with this topic. You all make the customary noises about how much you all appreciate the sacrifices and services made by the veterans of many Campaigns, but when it comes down to returning that service, you are to be found wanting. I wonder just how much you or your colleagues really know of what went on in the jungles of Malaysia over 40 years ago. I sense not much. Otherwise you would all appreciate just how honourable is the Malaysian offer of the PJM, and just how much we who fought there feel proud that they are so honouring us.

The first point that I make, and the one that should be the easiest to explain, is the definition of “formal permission to wear”. Several communications with a number of Government ministers have failed to elicit any answer to this question. What, exactly, is considered formal? Does it simply mean that no-one has the courage to stand up and declare that we cannot wear it but that no action will be taken if we do? As a civilian, there is no legal process to prevent me from wearing it when and where I like, so that appears to be a nonsense. Does it mean that we can wear it but not on formal occasions, and if so, what is deemed as a formal occasion? Certainly, 10 000 veterans wearing blazers and berets along Whitehall every November would not consider that they are formally attired, so where does this event figure in the definition of formal? And if the Annual Remembrance Parade is considered to be a formal event, and that the PJM will be banned from view, what sanctions are envisaged for breaking the rule? There is insufficient room in the Tower of London for the probable “criminals” and given that the Yeomen Warders are all veterans of one or another Campaign, I suggest that such incarceration would not be that unpleasant. At least we would be allowed to wear the medals that we have earned. You have yourself mentioned that the wearing of the PJM cannot be policed so where is the sense of the caveat that formal permission to wear will not be given? Why not just allow the medal to be worn by all those no longer serving in the Armed Forces and be done with it?

Now to tackle the misconceptions that lay behind many of the opinions relating to the PJM.

Not everyone who qualifies for the PJM has qualified for a British General Service Medal. The GSM (1918-1962) with Malaya clasp was awarded to the Army and Royal Air Force for service in Malaya from 16 June 1948 until 31 July 1960. For the Royal Navy, the Naval General Service Medal (1915) was available, although due to bureaucratic bumbling and indifference to the lot of the average sailor, very few were actually awarded as the Naval authorities of the day adopted a somewhat cavalier attitude towards the operations. The GSM (Malaya) was also awarded for service in Singapore between 16 June 1948 and 31 January 1959.

The GSM(1918-1962) and the NGSM (1915) were superseded by a single General Service Medal (1962) and this was first awarded with Borneo clasp for service in Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei (those territories formerly known as British North Borneo) between 24 December 1962 and 11 August 1966

The GSM(1962) with Malay Peninsula clasp was awarded for service in the Peninsula/Singapore region between 17 August 1964 and 12 June 1965. The various General Service Medals are awarded with no citation other than the respective Order that institutes them, which lays down the qualifying criteria and these vary from a single day in a prescribed area of operations to 30 days in the case of the Borneo medal.

The Citation for the PJM reads “this medal is awarded to the peacekeeping groups amongst the communion countries for distinguished chivalry, gallantry, sacrifice or loyalty in upholding Peninsula of Malaya or Malaysian sovereignty during the period of Emergency and Confrontation”. The qualifying period is 90 days in the prescribed areas of operations. These two factors alone mark out the medals as different awards – one is for service of a general nature in a combat environment whilst the other is an award of honour.

It is interesting that you quote a reason for justifying the un-enforceable, no-wear rule, as that to do so would create inconsistencies within the system because other campaigns have not resulted in permission to receive/wear awards from other foreign nations. Without going into the merits of individual cases, has it not occurred to you that those decisions in the past were as wrong as is this one now? An incorrect decision in history should not then become the benchmark for the future. Rather, let us endorse unrestricted acceptance of the PJM now and then conduct a review of the system that has allowed this shameful situation to arise.

You mention the parallel between the PJM and what you call the Russian convoy medal. Here you appear to have got your facts totally muddled. The Soviet 40th Anniversary Medal was instituted in 1985 (appropriately enough as it commemorated the 40th anniversary of the end of WWII). At that time its offer to those British personnel who served on the Russian convoys, was rejected. It was not until 1994 that HM the Queen approved it for acceptance and wear “bearing in mind the changed circumstances in Russia since the award was first issued”. So the original rejection was not based on the validity of the service rendered by those who qualified, but on some political motive. That leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. So what is so offensive about the Malaysian regime that HMG and the unelected members of the HD Committee deem their offer less acceptable than that from the Russians?

Incidentally, I think that you may be confusing the Soviet 40th Anniversary Medal (accepted for wear after British War and Campaign medals), and the Arctic Emblem (to be issued at some time by the British, approved for wear but as an emblem above the breast pocket rather than as a bona fide medal).

There was a medal awarded to personnel who served in the convoys to North Russia. This was the Atlantic Star. In fact, for the final 6 months of the war in Europe, the requirement that in order to qualify for the Atlantic Star personnel should first have qualified for the 1939-45 War Star, was waived. So it seems that the right decision can be made when there is the will to do so.

If you care to visit the Ministry of Defence’s own Veteran’s Agency web site you will see the differences between the medal and the emblem explained.

So a foreign medal, from a one-time hostile state, is given unrestricted approval whilst a medal from a long-standing member of the Commonwealth is deemed “inappropriate”. That, in spite of a number of awards for bravery, including the Victoria Cross in 1965.

To summarise why I reject your arguments, here are the principle points:
1 political – at a time when we are encouraged to support the “war on terrorism” the veterans of the only action so far to have achieved success in such a ward are treated with disdain. Even the US military authorities are now using the example of the British “hearts and minds” approach as the most likely way to defeat insurgencies.

2 moral – campaigns that led to the loss of British lives, and many more injured, are treated as mere sidelines in history by politicians and Civil Servants who, in the main were either not born when these events were played out, or were too young to know what went on. These people now have the audacity to say that they appreciate the sacrifice and effort made, but they are not prepared to act in a moral way towards those veterans. I’m afraid that the words have no substance without strong action to back them up.

3 constitutional – by advising Her Majesty to approve a different set of criteria from those recommended by her Australian and New Zealand subjects, the Malaysians have been snubbed, the veterans insulted and other member nations of the Commonwealth given another reason to question their loyalty to the Crown and the Commonwealth.

4 plain common sense – the veterans are now well into their 60’s and 70’s. whilst accepting the need to impose a regime over what can, and cannot, be worn on the uniform of a serving soldier, refusing all but unrestricted approval for the PJM smacks of mean-minded, control freakery. Let all involved step back and do the honourable thing and reverse this ludicrous decision. I’m sure that the decision was made with good intent but when in possession of all of the pertinent facts, it was a wrong decision and those involved should now prove that they are honourable and decent and allow full acceptance of the PJM.

I urge you to visit www.fight4thepjm.org where you will see the case for full acceptance put by veterans, and with backing from many prominent figures.

On a far more trivial note, but one which involves accuracy, my address is Knole Close and not Knowle Close as stated on your letter head. I may be an aging veteran, but I can still convey my correct home address, which will presumably be needed by the secret medal police when they come to arrest me for wearing my PJM contrary to the rules.


Yours Sincerely



Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo veteran)


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
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