Gerry wrote:

If and when mine comes through I will wear mine on ANZAC day and rememberance day. Also with the Oz medal it was asked if you would be in Malayaia and if you would like it presented up there.

Welcome to the PJM web site, Gerry. When you get your medal, wear it o n ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day. You earned it and the Malaysians want you to wear it. You have our support.

So long as the medal you earned is worn lawfully (i.e. without intent to gain from it etc), there is absolutely nothing that the British authorities can do about it. And I can't see the Aussies taking on the job of unpaid enforcers for the British Imperial Honours System! For it is that Imperial Honours System that is trying to impose this antiquated rule in inappropriate circumstances. So, unless they can invoke the Inquisition to come knocking at our door, they can wring their hands in constipated despair as much as they like because they are, in reality, powerless as far as we civvies are concerned in relation to the PJM.


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

I don't want to undermine the sacrifice that the poppy worn on Remembrance Day has. Because I always have worn one and with pride.
Who authorised the wearing of the poppy on uniforms, the HD Committee, the Queen or who? Why should we not be able to wear our decoration with pride alongside the poppy and other medals as well as those that wear regalia that has never been earned, hhhhmmmmm..........


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

Barry, I am a member of a Regimental Association which I will not mention at this moment as I do not wish to cause them any problems with the 'suits' who may be reading this. It is connection with service in Rhodesia - I was there during UDI time when Ian Smith thumbed his nose up at the British establishment, as you may recall. We were awarded the Rhodesian GSM for our service and I checked the other day to ask their advice on the wearing of foreign medals. They told me that when in uniform permission has to be obtained to wear the medal but in civilian clothes permission is not required and it can even be worn by civvies at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day. So it looks like the unelected HD Committee has opened a can of worms which affects more than the PJM because everyone else who has a foreign medal honestly believes they have the right to wear it with pride and impunity whilst in civilian clothes. Cry havoc and unleash the Dogs of War - we may no longer be warriors but we are still capable of fighting for justice for war veterans of our country. Bring 'em on!!

mcdangle wrote:

They told me that when in uniform permission has to be obtained to wear the medal but in civilian clothes permission is not required and it can even be worn by civvies at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day.

Andy, This is very interesting and new info. Can you tell me who 'They' are? Thanks.


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

GerryL wrote:

I have contacted the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and many other leading figures but so far not only has my query not been answered - it has not even been acknowledged. Could the Agency please talk to the FCO and get a definitive statement as to what is meant by "formal permission"?

Gerry, this is the $64 dollar question! I am reminded of George's explanation about the difference between "restricted award", "unrestricted award", and the PJM award. That discussion is fundamental to the formal permission aspect. Under the Foreign Decorations rules of British Medals Policy, "Restricted" and "Unrestricted" refer only to the wearing of an award. The crafty draughtsmen in the HD Committee/FCO/MOD have endeavoured to place the PJM outside the two types of 'wear' categories by stating that formal permission will not be given for the medal to be worn, thus relegating the PJM to the category of "keepsake" without actually saying so.

In trying to dodge the issue, they have used the words 'formal permission'. I think that that will turn out to be an error on their part. It implies that some kind of permission has been attached to the PJM otherwise they should not have used the epithet 'formal'. They should have come clean, as the Cabinet Office did in a letter to me, and should have clearly stated that the award has been accepted but as a keepsake and not as a medal that can be worn at any time. Then we would have known exactly where we were up to.

The problem the HD Committee and the FCO/MOD have is that British citizens do not need to seek permission from the Queen to accept a Foreign award as a keepsake - you can accept any number of those without asking anybody's consent - we all used to as kids ... out of our Cornflakes packets.

But you need the Queen's permission to "accept and wear" a foreign award. Their position was further complicated because the Malaysians made it a stipulation that the PJM would be offered by them only if it had the agreement of the Government of the applicant - NB they did this to avoid their medal being a keepsake that we could send off for shrink-wrapped from KL. And quite right, too. The PJM is a medal for service and should be worn.

HMG should have nipped the Malaysian request in the bud at outset (the Rules allow for this). They didn't because by the time they were offered it, the Aussies and Kiwis had already done the right thing and had accepted the gracious offer. Baroness Symons, full of her self-serving self importance, said "No" to the award in a written answer in the Lords. Then more dithering and anxious wringing of hands in the FCO who could see a few juicy contracts going up the proverbial Malacca Straits (Ian Pearson, I/C the PJM, is the Trade Minister at the FCO and its his business to encourage trade with Malaysia). So the Government paused on the Symons "No" and asked the HD Committee to look into it. Yet another mistake because, from that moment, this PJM was going to either be rejected outright or a recommendation was going to be made to the Queen by the HD Committee. That is what the Rules require. And recommendations to the Queen are for 'accept and wear'. Oh dear … what a screw up! That was never the intention of the HD Committee although I think the FCO would not object to a wearable gong.

Somewhere along that tortured path, somebody made a horlicks of it all by trying to appear as if they were giving the PJM the courtesy of a proper hearing as a real medal by involving EIIR when in reality they just wanted the whole matter to go away. But go to the Queen it did and, as she is no position to say "accept it but don't you dare wear it next to one of mine", there was further wringing of hands. And some plonker then came up with the idea of skirting round whether to confess to permission to wear having been given and produced the appalling formula "formal permission to wear the medal will not, however, be given". So we have a new Rule specially created for the PJM ... formal permission! And nobody yet knows exactly what it means. So it's yet another anomaly arising from another shameful 'compromise'.

QED - the birth of fight4thePJM came about by emergency Caesarean. But this bairn is bottle fed on Tiger! And we'll fight.

I wonder, Gerry, whether your answer will reflect any of the above!

Barry

PS We shall have to be on the 'qui vive' for yet another compromise from the corridors of power. There will be considerable chagrin there at the birth of fight4thePJM and they will be seeking another form of words to get themselves out of this hole they've dug for themselves. They could try it on by giving us an avuncular pat on the head and offering a restricted wear medal stipulating (with no little glee on their part) that the restriction states that the PJM can be worn only on those official occasions associated with, and prescribed by, Malaysia. That would mean Malaysian 'formal' occasions on Malaysian territory (its Embassies or in the country itself). It would not include ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day.


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

This lot is an unelected QUANGO, they have made rules themselves, not passed by the PEOPLES PARLIAMENT in the House of Commons so I therefore do not accept this 'rule' as law and do what I want to do and wear the medal with pride when convenient with me and on such commemorative occasions.

Oliver Cromwell saw the errors of these peoples ways a few centuries ago, lest we forget them too............


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

Barrie
You make a good argument, as usual. With reference to the prospect of "wear limited to those events with a Malaysian influence (on Malaysian territory)", the Malaysian High Commissioner lays a wreath on the Cenotaph in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday. By default I reckon that would be sufficient Malaysian involvement to allow the wearing of the PJM.
GerryL
Fight for the right to wear the PJM


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)

Quote:

They could try it on by giving us an avuncular pat on the head and offering a restricted wear medal stipulating (with no little glee on their part) that the restriction states that the PJM can be worn only on those official occasions associated with, and prescribed by, Malaysia.

With reference to Barry's observation and prognostication as to potential reaction of the HD committee to the organized criticism we are collectively mounting:

....My humble assessment of the situation leads me to believe that there are only 2 possible courses of action for the HD committee.

1...They can simply do nothing at all, in the fond hope 'that those nasty men at 'Fight4thePJM', if ignored, will become tired of the fight, go away and subside into disgruntled silence'.

OR

2...They can say "Whoopsie,...Sorry Your Majesty, we made a little mistake...we know it makes our Monarch appear foolish, but let's just revise the 'restricted wear' stipulation and that'll resolve the difficulty".

Now I leave it to the intellect of my reader as to which course of action an anal retentive, unelected, overpaid, answerable to nobody, committee member would select, as the best possible option for himself, in such circumstances?

THE only tiny 'fly in the proverbial ointment' is....we at 'Fight4thePJM' are NOT going to go away, we are growing stronger by the day and as Barry has previously commented...'We'll fight!'..

...Depend on it!

'Jock'
[/quote]

Great debate people. 1. Lib Democrat Leader Sir Ming stated in his speech he will fight for a fairer society- where we see unfairness we will challenge it and at the present time we are in the graveyard of democracy (tell me about it). I will send him an email making him aware of the unjust and unlawful actions of the unelected HD quango, Ian Pearson MP and the MOD who are now sticking their neb in where it is not wanted. I have this urge to write 'un' before every word, do you think there is a cure for it?
The Magna Carta (1215) is often thought as the corner stone of Liberty and the Chief Defence against ARBITRARY AND UNJUST RULE. Section 40 states To no-one will we sell, to no-one deny or delay right or justice. By this ancient right we have the authority to demand from this government justice for the veterans of Malaya/Malaysia/Borneo which is to accept and wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia and to have the RULES altered, renewed or rescinded, without proper Parliamentary Approval is denying the people basic rights.
Interesting to note that Baroness Symonds of Vernham Dean said 'All British Citizens require permission from HMG (Her Majesty's Government) to accept and wear foreign state awards. Note HMG and not unelected quango, single MP or Her Majesty the Queen. Also note the word 'award'- to give something, such as a prize, which is not a medal. To be honest I would rather be on this side of the fence than theirs when the brown stuff hits the fan. Keep up the good fight chaps, right will prevail.

Could I just ask this simple question? Are we being denied our human rights in not being given the right as civilians, to wear the PJM medal


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

John Cooper wrote:

Are we being denied our human rights in not being given the right as civilians, to wear the PJM medal

I think so. In today's world it is not good enough for a state to deny a right to a citizen through an unelected QUANGO. That is not law, it's a lynching party. The next thing you know, an unelected Committee will deny the elected Mayor of London the right to be Mayor!

As we know, the acronym QUANGO stands for Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation. Think about that as you think about the unelected HD Committee telling the world that the PJM is a tin trinket you cannot wear next to a British Medal! The Honours and Decorations Committee is, in reality, a QUANGO. The UK government's definition of a QUANGO is:

"A body which has a role in the processes of national government, but is not a government department or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extent at arm's length from Ministers." (One of the attributes given the HD Committee by Government is that it is specifically at arm's length from Ministers)

The Government wants us to use the less controversial term Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) to describe these organisations - in an attempt to avoid the pejorative associations of the term QUANGO.

Well that is one bit of spin up with which we will not put. HD Committee - to us quasi you are and quasi you will always be.

And in my view it is not just that anything quasi, anything unelected, anything non-judicial, should be deny me a right.

There, this barrack-room lawyer rests his duffel bag.


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

So Barry, if weare beingdenied our basic human rights how then do we get this corrected at The Court for Human Rights at Strasbourg. I guess there is a cost for this, any real lawyers out there that knows the answer ........


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

I am getting a bit slow nowadays as I am nearing 69 years of age, so please forgive me if someone has already brought up this matter and I have overlooked it.
The photograph from land of Oz shows the Governor General, the Malaysian Admiral, and others. The Governor General and others are proudly (quite rightly so) wearing the Pingat Jasa Medal on their left chest and the Malaysian Admiral having presented the MEDALS (not awards) is looking on proudly. The Governor General is, I believe, the representative of the Queen and, of course, Her Majesty the Queen has given permission for them to accept and wear this MEDAl. Sooooooooo, the Pingat Jasa Medal is a medal which has been authorised by the Queen and Malaysian Government Representatives as a Service Medal to be worn on the left breast. If is looks like a duck, it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it is a f^&*"! duck. This is definite and unmitigating proof that the Pingat Jasa Malaysia is, and has been authorised as, a Service Medal and not an award or trinket and that Her Majesty the Queen has authorised this.
No amount of diatribe from some pimply jumped up bureaucrat in the UK can alter the facts, or proof of the pudding as I would say, that the Pingat Jasa Malaysia is the Honour Medal of Malaysia which was presented for service in combat/active service.
Anyone, and I mean anyone, who verbally or otherwise dishonours or demeans this MEDAL is not only insulting The King, Government and people of Malaysia, but they are also insulting the Queen of the Commonwealth - OUR QUEEN.
I genuinely believe that the unelected quango have got their brief mixed up with their arrogant, self centred opinion of themselves, as they should really be denying the peasants rights on Honours and Decorations ie AWARDS ( prizes for something like an OBE, or other such like to a cricket team for winning a match) and not medals earned for active service, and the sooner they realise this and take action to rectify it and apololgise to Her Majesty the Queen for the worldwide bad publicity this has cause, the better.
In answer to the question, Yes, I believe they have acted in an unlawful manner and they have breached our basic human rights to a just and proper parliamentary government, not a quango of elitist spouting rules and regulations which they think we should obey.

mcdangle wrote:

I genuinely believe that the unelected quango have got their brief mixed up

Andy, It's a fundamental plank of my argument and of my submissions to the HD Committee and to MPs and Ministers that the PJM has been misunderstood from the very beginning.

1) The PJM is a unique award - no other award has the same scope or the same implications for the originating country or for the receiving countries and therefore it is erroneous to try and apply rules specific to other awards.

2) The PJM is not an award for an individual and so should not follow that route when being considered.

3) The PJM is not a foreign award and should not be treated as such despite the Medals Policy statement that lumps together all Johnny Foreigners under the label "Foreign States". This is a Commonwealth country award offered to a group of countries who all have the same Head of State - The Queen - and with the right mindset could be viewed as being as acceptable as any other Organisational award (UNO, NATO etc).

4) The PJM has not been offered only to the British for Malaysian service having been awarded to other Commonwealth countries for the same service and so it should not be considered in isolation to those other countries otherwise it creates divisions between Commonwealth allies, and creates classes between their respective citizens.

5) The PJM is not an award that has been considered before and consequently the 5-year rule should not be applied - this rule has been explained as the HD Committee not re-considering previous awards. Well, the PJM has not been considered before.

6) A British citizen does not require any permission to accept a foreign award. That citizen requires the Queen's consent only if the award is to be worn. Therefore, when the PJM recommendation went to the Queen it should only have gone to her with a recommendation for acceptance and wear. Either the HD Committee followed the rules correctly and made an ‘accept and wear’ recommendation, or they made a horlicks of it and thereby confused the situation. If they followed correct procedures, then permission to wear is hanging about in a corridor somewhere and some sad individual is knowingly withholding that permission!

7) However one may view the wearer or the award, there is no law to prevent a civilian wearing a foreign award even when it does not have the Queen's consent for wear, yet the HD Committee and HMG have contrived to imply that there is. They have their 'uniformed' and their 'civilians' muxed ip.

It is issues like this that have confused the simplistic approach of the HD Committee. They are so confused that they have got their facts wrong - and that is unforgivable when considering their error affects the rights of a citizen. They are wrong to quote double-medalling as an objection to the PJM because for 5 1/2 years in Singapore and 1 1/2 years on the Peninsula, no British award was issued for the service that the PJM covers. Anyway the PJM has greater scope than any British medallic award and so it is immaterial whether you have a GSM/.CSM.

They are trying to get the "they've already got a medal" spin accepted and repeated by the media and by Associations because it is their only camouflage their flimsy and vulnerable second (and, please note, their only other) objection to the PJM - the 5-year rule. This rule was brought in specifically to address requests for an award for service that took place a long time ago and which was considered at that time. Today's HD Committee, quite rightly in my view, should not try and put themselves in the place of decision makers of the time and to try reinvent what was discussed a long time ago. The rule was also used to inhibit the flow of commemoratives that many foreign countries scatter around like confetti and which would undermine the integrity of British Medals. Well, most of us would agree that the HD Committee's role is to protect that integrity. But it is absolutely fundamental that the HD Committee should recognise that neither of those circumstances apply to the PJM. They should not apply a rule in inappropriate circumstances.

And so, yes. Confusion abounds in the HD Committee and in Government. Frankly, I don't think those decision makers have given the PJM the time it deserves for consideration. And that's why I expect the PJM to made a wearable medal once others have had the opportunity to examine the facts rather than the HD's version of them.


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

Yes Barry, I agree entirely but what I was trying to say is that we have a 'stated case'. This is a legal term which I am not too familiar with as I am not a solicitor but from what I understand of it is, if you can prove an identical set of circumstances are available which have been acceptable then this stated case can prove that you were not acting unlawfully or against the rules. Perhaps a solicitor reading our site could explain it better.
Even thinking about the Court of Human Rights would cost us British Taxpayers and arm and a leg but strangers to our shores can get it free of charge and in some cases they can get a 'legal team' to represent them for nothing, I think it is called legal aid. The best person in this field is Cherie Booth QC. She is married to yon man Blair who is our Prime Minister. You know, the chap who speaks to God.