Dear Sir:

I am an ex-RAF veteran who has never served in the Far East and am therefore not entitled to this medal.
However, I am aghast at the obvious double standard for our servicemen who did serve and earned this medal but now apparently are being prohibited from wearing it. Although I no longer live in the United Kingdom I feel I must raise my voice at this injustice.
It is disgraceful that HM The Queen recognises Commonwealth troops' right to wear the medal, but not her own British servicemen.

I am not faulting Her Majesty, I am blaming the misinformed and obviously totally incompetent HD Committee of the British Government which advises her in such matters.

Please do whatever you can to rectify this severely unjust decision. Thank you.

Sincerely,

James Wilcox
(RAF German and Russian Interpreter 1948-1956)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx BC xxxxxx
CANADA
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(full address provided)


“Pingat Jasa Malaysia” can be translated as "The Malaysian Service Medal". The medal was offered at the end of 2004 to the Commonwealth countries who served Malaysia - including Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, the United Kingdom and, never to be forgotten, the Gurkhas.

Foreign and Commonwealth medals have to be accepted by The Queen on the advice of the Government of each Commonwealth country involved where she is head of State. After a short period of consultation the Governments of Australia and New Zealand accepted the medal without restriction for their citizens. The British Government, however, announced in the House of Lords that they would refuse the Malaysian medal for British citizens on the basis that the award was contrary to British Medals Policy.

In early 2005 intensive lobbying commenced to try and reverse that decision and after a few months the Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) announced that the FCO had submitted a paper to the Committee on the Grants of Honours, Decorations and Medals (known as the HD Committee which advises The Queen on these matters) asking them to review their policy in respect of foreign awards and the PJM.

After several months the HD Committee met on the 7th December 2005 to carry out the review but their recommendation was not announced until a written Ministerial Statement was made in the Commons on the 31st January 2006 - the day after medals were presented in Australia where the medal can now be proudly worn.

The British HD Committee’s recommendation, however, was that British citizens could accept the medal but they would not be allowed to wear it. This astonishing compromise means that The Queen has granted a wearable medal to her Australian and New Zealand citizens, but has refused the right to wear the PJM to her British citizens.

excerpted from:
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/index_objectives.htm


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)

GerryL wrote:

Dear Sir:
I am an ex-RAF veteran who has never served in the Far East and am therefore not entitled to this medal ... However, I am aghast at the obvious double standard for our servicemen who did serve and earned this medal but now apparently are being prohibited from wearing it.

In terms of support, Gerry, we can ask no more. Warms the cockles of your heart. In return, I shall send a few more messages tonight. If you are in touch with James Wilcox, please let him know that we are grateful to him for that message.


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

As my stint in malaya was from 1951-1953 the medal is not applicable to me personally but I still feel I have the right to feel disgust at our gov.denying the right to the guys who followed us to wear what is now rightfully theirs.Was the time taken to accept this medal from the malaysian gov. not insult enough.Wear it with pride,you earned it.


_________________
charles kane

c.kane wrote:

As my stint in malaya was from 1951-1953 the medal is not applicable to me personally but I still feel I have the right to feel disgust at our gov.denying the right to the guys who followed us to wear what is now rightfully theirs.Was the time taken to accept this medal from the malaysian gov. not insult enough.Wear it with pride,you earned it.

Thank you for your support, c.kane - and for the generosity in what you said. You put the HD Committee to shame.

With that kind of strength of support behind us, we cannot fail.


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

A brief 'Thank you' to James Wilcox & Charles Kane...your expressions of support mean a great deal to us...visit this site as often as you can....you will always be welcome!

'Jock'.

Today I received the below letter from Lt. Col. Alexander Matheson. St James Palace. SW1A 1BH


" Thank you for your letter about the Pingat Jasa Medal.
Although I am on the HD Committee, I am not the correct person to answere your query.
I am therefore copying this letter and yours to its secretary:

Dennis Brennan Esq.
Head of Ceremonial Secretariat
Cabinet Office
35,Great Smith Street
London
SWIP 3BQ


Yours Sicerely

A. Matheson."


It would appear that no matter who we write to...it is somebody else that is dealing with it. However I have also written to Dennis Brennan Esq. I ewonder who he will forward it to!!!

Bob

George F wrote:

...more vets writing to these guys the better, because as Barry will agree all the civil servants on this committee are not totally against us wearing the PJM.

Yes - I agree. Keep writing. Which is why Bob's letters and his responses are so vital.

George F wrote:

...its Rear Adm Wilkinson from the MOD and the Queens private secretary ex RN also who are the real flies in the ointment here. Both these guys have offices at Buck house and see it their duty to protect the traditions of Sovereign, when in fact all the two of them are doing are embarrassing the poor lady who is coming up to her 80 birthday.

I am convinced that the PJM recommendation was a confused muddle because the HD Committee were badly briefed by Rear Adm Wilkinson and they got muxed ip about whether dual medalling applied. I received a letter from him just a few days before the 7th December HD Committee meeting and he was still prattling on about double medalling (which cannot and does not apply to the PJM). I believe that the MOD have confused the senior civil servants. Remember, these top civil servants are not stupid. They did not get to the most senior position in their department (MOD, FCO, etc) without earning their promotion. I have a mild pop at them in frustration but I never, ever, decry them.

Like George, I do not have the same regard for the service representatives. I question why they are there and not in an operational unit. Is it because they have volunteered for the desk job or because operational units have volunteered them cos they're happy not to have them on board? They are simply not my kind of people, and I have never been confident in their capability.

The civil servants on the HD Committee relied upon their service representatives to brief them as to, inter alia, existing medallic awards. Those service representatives briefed them incorrectly but the HD Committee did not know that. Why should they - it’s not their area of responsibility? But they had no alternative but to accept the word of those service reps and so the PJM headed inevitably down the road towards the keepsake decision.

The civil servants were more likely to have been supporters of the 5-year rule. But they could only go down that route if there were other considerations that emboldened them to do so. Those ‘other considerations’ were the erroneous statements made by the service reps.

That is why we are asking detailed questions and why we are suggesting that the recommendation was based upon an incorrect briefing to the HD Committee and so the emerging recommendation should be reviewed. Barry

George F wrote:

Could you as armed forces minister inform me did HMG of the 1850's issue a Ministerial Statement informing Crimean veterans "Permission to wear the TCM "Turkish Crimea Medal" will not, however, formally be given". as this enclosed Ministerial Statement 31 January 2006 was issued by HMG which said "Permission to wear the PJM will not, however, formally be given" to 35,000 British Malaya Borneo veterans?

George, this is exactly what we need. You keep hammering away at the fundamental point - that the withholding of 'formal' permission is not only unjust, it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. It is a shameful and mean-minded insult to veterans and to Malaysia. By repeating it often enough, the penny will begin to drop in offices along the Thames Embankment, in Whitehall and in Downing Street. Thanks for keeping up this relentless pressure. Barry


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

George
Another brilliant offering. I had forgotten that the lads in the Crimea got "double medals", one of which was foreign. I'm surprised that the veterans accepted both medals - they were probably not aware that it would offend the orderly stacks of paperwork in Whitehall. After all, the Crimea veterans only had to endure Russian bullets and cannon fire, as well as cavalry charges. And the Charge of the Light Brigade? Just a gentle stroll through the Valley of Death. And of course, a little bit of disease added in to make the whole overseas trip worthwhile. Upon reflection, I'm surprised that any medals were awarded. After all, what were the experinces of the lads in Crimea compared to the queues for awards within the corridors oo power where the real fighting was done.
GerryL


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)

I returned home after a week out of country to find the below letter from the Cabinet office waiting for me.

"Thank you for your recent letter to Denis Brennan about the decision to allow veterans to accept but not wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM). I have been asked to reply and I must apologise for the delay.

The decision to accept the PJM has been a complicated mattor involving several government departments and careful consideration of a number of factors and specifically the rules governing the acceptance and wear of foreign awards.
The committee on the grant of honours(HD) did make a special exception to two of these rules which states that non-British medals will not be approved for events or service.

- that took place more than five years ago
- if a British medal has been awarded for the same service.

Whilst the HD Committee considered that there were sound reasons why the rules should be retained, there were specific circumstances - as you suggest - that required an exception to be made. It was cosidered important to recognise the generous gesture by the King and Government of Malaysia and their wish to acknowledge the service given by veterans and others in the years immediately after Malaysian independence. The exception recommended reflects this and our strong and important relationship with Malaysia.

The decision was agreed that the PJM could be accepted but it was not judged appropriate for the medal to be worn. Similar exeptions were made from Saudi and Kuwaiti governments after the first Gulf War, as well as for the commemorative Greek War medal several years ago.

Her Majesty accepted the advice of the HD committee, whose role it is to ensure that the integrity of the UK honours system is maintained. Whilst not in any way detracting from those who served in Malaysia between 1957 and 1966, the HD committee did not consider there was a strong eneough casefor these rules to be disregarded entirely for the PJM. The committee believes that to do so would compromise previous awards and the integrity of the system.

Although no formal permission has been given for wearing the medal the wearing of awards by civilians is not policed. It is for individuals to decide whether they wish to wear the medal, in the light of the Queens approval of the recommendations of the Committee on the grant of Honours Decorations and medals relating to the PJM.

Yours sincerely ,
Neena Thandasseri
Policy Officer.



A lot of familiar rhetoric, however I find the last paragraph interesting. I can't help but feel that the HD commitee just want this ALL to go away and have actualy put into writing that it is now up to us whether we wear the PJM.
Do I detect a shift here??

Bob Bryant

'IN LIGHT OF THE QUEEN'S APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE GRANT OF HONOURS DECORATIONS AND MEDALS RELATING TO THE PJM.'

The reccomendations made by the HD Committee were that the two long standing rules governing the wearing and acceptance of foreign medal would be excepted thus allowing the acceptance and wearing of the PJM.
So who made up the 'permission will not however, be granted for it to be worn formally?'. If this was not Her Majesty the Queen then who is authorised to make such a rule?
Can they tell us what was the recommendations signed by Her Majesty the Queen and did they include permission not to wear.
If, as they now say, that civilians will not be policed and it is up to the individual to decide if they wear the PJM or not then I doubt if Her Majesty gave any rule about non-wearing. If she had, then no-one in the cabinet could even suggest breaching this Royal Command.

So the question still remains - WHO MADE THE RULE THAT THE PJM CANNOT BE WORN FORMALLY? Surely they can answer this simple question as it is not a government or royal secret which is harmful to anyone. After all, this rule is not contained in the original rules and has been made up and added by someone.

...In regard to Bob Bryant's receipt of the Cabinet Office response...the altered tone of the letter is indeed significant...however assurance that 'wearing of the medal will not be policed' is something of a hollow joke...the wearing of the medal by civilians CANNOT be policed...I wrote and mailed the following to all HD Committee members on 6 March 2006...and I can hardly wait to receive an equivalent and similarly worded reply, which will provide me with the opportunity to write again....and again....and again....and again....

'Jock'

Pingat Jasa Malaysia
Dear Sir,

Permit me to preface my comments with the observation that, as an ex serviceman, I fully understand, and support, the right of the HD committee to establish and enforce protocol governing the wearing of medals by members of Her Majesties Armed Forces.

Further, I am aware of the recent decision of your committee, which advises all eligible applicants for the PJM that, while they may accept this honour, they are not ‘formally’ permitted to wear the medal.

Since virtually all of the veterans eligible for this award are now septuagenarian civilians, I confess that the logistics of your potential ability to police and enforce such an edict leaves me somewhat nonplussed.

I was hitherto unaware that, as a civilian, it was necessary for me to obtain permission from anyone to accept such a medal…and since I do not now, nor am I ever likely to again, wear the Queen’s uniform, by what right do you impose conditions of wear upon me?

With the greatest of respect Sir, I submit that you can exercise no such control over the actions of any civilian, and let me suggest that, at the earliest possible opportunity, you revisit this regrettable decision, which appears to infer that you may.

Yours truly,

John Fenton.


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

'Jock' Fenton wrote:

...In regard to Bob Bryant's receipt of the Cabinet Office response...the altered tone of the letter is indeed significant...however assurance that 'wearing of the medal will not be policed' is something of a hollow joke...the wearing of the medal by civilians CANNOT be policed...I wrote and mailed the following to all HD Committee members on 6 March 2006...and I can hardly wait to receive an equivalent and similarly worded reply, which will provide me with the opportunity to write again....and again....and again....and again....

Indeedy, Jock.

I've been AWOL today and am just catching up on today's events including Bob Bryant's Cabinet Office letter (thanks, Bob - any chance of a scan into an attachment?)

Rather than try and reply to each message, I'll just add my thoughts.

The Cabinet Office letter results, I am quite certain, from the lobbying that has been going on. Your letters and emails have had an impact. There is no doubt about that.

But nothing has changed. We already knew we civvies could wear the PJM - and they knew we knew. We told them. So ...

First, congratulations! You did it. Without your lobbying the "formal permission ... not been given" statement would have remained in place unchallenged. You now have their first ‘form of words’ that we have been seeking.

Second, this CO letter gives every civilian the clearance they wanted to wear their medal. They couldn't give a fig if a civvy wears the PJM. They have bigger fish to fry with the Government no longer able to sustain any vestige of credibility after the recent news about £13.5M of loans funding their victory at the last election (Yup, Blair told his backbenchers who were complaining about the secret loans to 'get real' - 'the money was used to get you elected!' - I paraphrase but the facts are correct, allegedly).

Third, I'm not pausing for breath in my campaign. Their change of words from the letter I received in February is clear in its intent. Get’em off our backs, tell’em, and tell’em fast - 'wear it if you want' because we can’t stop’em, and anyway we don’t care what they do. But confuse the issue about whether permission to wear was granted at all and, if it was, whether permission was formally withheld - and by whom it was formally withheld … and camouflage all that in some carefully contrived gobbledygook, something along the lines of:

"Although no formal permission has been given for wearing the medal the wearing of awards by civilians is not policed. It is for individuals to decide whether they wish to wear the medal, in the light of the Queens approval of the recommendations of the Committee on the grant of Honours Decorations and medals relating to the PJM."

Fourth, I know when I’m being patronized in the hope that I’ll go away satisfied with a pat on the head and not push for simple answers to simple questions - what does ‘formal’ mean, and who’s withholding the permission that has been given?

I believe that the Civil Servants understand that a cock-up of immense proportion has been made (I think on the info supplied by the uniforms to the suits). Unhappily, in their discomfort they have made three more errors of judgment - the two Kuwaiti Liberation medals and the Greek commemorative are no more useful to their argument than the Russian Commemorative that has been accepted for wear. But they didn’t mention the Russian medal - why was that?

No, this is not a pedantic argument. They continue to argue that the PJM is not respectable! I shall fight on to obtain recognition for the PJM and for the right to wear it with pride.

Quite simply, they know the Commonwealth PJM is a wearable medal … they just need to say so. It’s not difficult. They just need a little more encouragement ….

.... now where's me quill!


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

Thought you might like to read this cutting that I recently cam across.
"A notice in the London Gazette dated 23 November 2005 has announced that Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve that members of Her Armed Forces who were in the service of Hid Majesty the Sultan of Oman on either loan or contract terms at the date of the celebration of the Sultanate's National Day in November 2005, and who are eligible to receive from the Sultan the 35th Renaissance Medel (35th National Day Medal) in recognition of their services, may accept and wear the medal with unrestricetd permission." So who moved the goalposts and put in a slope on the playing field on this one?


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)

GerryL wrote:

So who moved the goalposts and put in a slope on the playing field on this one?

It's the " on either loan or contract terms at the date of the celebration " that does it. There's a specific Rule ... but the whole of the Commonwealth Brigade was 'on loan' to the Malaysians.

28 Comwel Brigade was a part of SEATO - Malaysia ws not. But we needed to have forces stationed in a friendly country near to the two countries that SEATO was worreid about - Laos and Thailand. So a deal was struck - Seato/Commonwealth Forces were allowed to be in Malaysia only if they were first available to the Malaysians in their defence against external aggression.

Yet another reason why the PJM should be just as wearable as the Oman medal ... but Malaysia doesn't have oil or influence ... only an innate dignity.

PS My authority for my statement: H B Eaton's "Something Extra - 28 Commonwealth Infantry Brigade 1951 - 1974"



Last edited by BarryF on Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia