Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 8 of 9
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Contact with MPs
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Contact with MPs 
GerryL wrote:
I am posting off a snail mail to Paddy Ashdown at the House of Lords. As a Boreno veteran himself he might just support the cause.
Gerald


Gerry,

Did you ever get a reply? Paul Alders, myself and I suspect others are interested in following up on Paddy Ashdown. Thanks, Barry


_________________
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 Paddy Ashdown 
I am still awaiting a reply from his Lordship. I am disappointed that he has not done so - I suspect that elevation from Grunt to Peer of the Realm may have changed his outlook on the real world. It certainly would be worth a few more efforts, though.


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Mark Harper MP 
This is the letter I recieved today. Mr Harper does not support our campaign, but I intend tomorrow to send him a letter pointing out some of the misconceptions in his thinking.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr Gerald Law LONDON SW1A OAA
6 Knowle ClOse
Crabbet Park
Worth
Crawley
West Sussex
RH1O 7GA
Our Reference: LDN3958 12th April 2006
DearMr Law

Thank you for writing regarding the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) Medal. I am
replying as Shadow Minister for Veterans on behalf of the Defence Team.

I have always had the utmost respect for the bravery and gallantry shown by the
soldiers and veterans who have served and continue to serve in the British Armed
Forces. They have performed admirably around the world in conflicts and peace
keeping.

I believe that we should not forget the heroic actions of those who served in Malaya
and Borneo. I can understand your wish for the ex-servicemen who served between
August 1957 and August 1966 to receive the same recognition as their New Zealand
and Australian counterparts.

I welcome the decision by the committee on the Grants of Honours, Decorations and
Medals to make an exception and recommend that veterans may receive the PJM
medal issued by the Malaysian government to show their gratitude to those British
servicemen that served to protect them. However, I support the decision to declin~
formal permission to wear the medal in line with long standing practice. J

There are two reasons for this. First, it would be unfair on those servicemen that havi~
either not received medals from other foreign campaigns or received them and not
been allowed to wear them, thus creating inconsistencies within the system. Second,
the British government has already issued a medal for the campaign (British Generalj
Service Medal with Malaya/Borneo clasp) which may be worn by veterans of thel
campaign. Those that wish to do so may wear this medal.

Parallels have been drawn between the PJM and the Russian convoy medal, where thel
latter was permitted to be worn by British servicemen. However, wearing of the)
Russian convoy medal was only permitted as the British government had, at that
point, issued no equivalent medal specifically for that campaign.

The HD Committee has already made an exception to rules that are not normally~
broken. Their decision in this case should be welcomed. Finally, the government has
already pointed out that the wearing of these medals by civilians is not policed, ~
whether or not to do so is up to individuals. -~

Yours sincerely


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Shadow defence team of four. 
George F wrote:
"I am replying as Shadow Minister for Veterans on behalf of the Defence Team."


Indeedy, George.

And if I were another of the Gang of Four, I'd be asking some searching questions of Mr Harper. He would have made those four look just as incompetent, just as interested in preserving a discredited (dis)Honours system using spin and disinformation, just as interested in not following Mr Cameron's lead - purportedly he wants to modernise the New Conservatives!

Err ... I can think of four good reasons why Mr Cameron is already losing support and why will fail - he says one thing, but his troops are saying something quite different. It is patently obvious from people like Mr Harper, nouveau-Tory MPs, that hey want to preserve the past and are prepared to do so at any cost using Labour's technique of spin and disinformation!

No - we are not political. We are apolitical. But it is right that we should question politicians and what they are doing and not doing.

Barry

PS Is that the correct emailaddress for Dr Fox? Dr Liam Fox, Defence Minister, has promised to look into our argument and was a supporter of the PJM (see earlier posts). Dr Julian Lewis is ex-RN and was always a support of the PJM. We should write top them and ask them why they have changed their minds! On Mr Harper's advice????


_________________
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 Mark Harper 
Thanks for all the input. I am putting together a response and will send it via snail mail after the holiday. I shall also send him a copy of our Submission so that he can see our argument in logical stages. I am also working on a spreadsheet that show the comparative qualifying dates for the various medals. I'll pass it by the forum before I sent it off with my letter.


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Reply to Mark Harper 
This is what I am sending off.
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
Reply with quote
Post Reply to Mark Harper... 
Brilliant Gerry....simply brilliant!


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Shadow Minister Harper 
Great letters George & Gerry. I hope these letters help educate Harper concerning the error of his statements. I have also zapped the shadow ministry team for good measure.
Hamish

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Mark Harper MP 
First class reply George. I must say that my opinions of MPs (with one or two exceptions) is cynical to say the least. The comments and, it would appear, the competence of this guy beggars belief.

Kind regards,

Ian M

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post My MP 
The local elections have seen the Labour Party ousted from Crawley Town Hall for the first time in over 30 years. My MP, Laura Moffatt, had a majority of just 37 last year. She has steadfastly refused to give us any support other than forwarding my letters to Don Touhig. I hope that her CV is up to date.


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: My MP 
GerryL wrote:
The local elections have seen the Labour Party ousted from Crawley Town Hall for the first time in over 30 years. My MP, Laura Moffatt, had a majority of just 37 last year. She has steadfastly refused to give us any support other than forwarding my letters to Don Touhig. I hope that her CV is up to date.


Having helped her boss PratRicia Hewitt bring the NHS close to collapse, she'll probably get promoted with her boss to the Foreign Office. Err ... is that good or bad news!


_________________
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 David Mundell 
Following my telephone conversation with Lt.Col. Young earlier in the week, he suggested that our proposed solution might be of use to Mr Mundell, so I've sent this email to him.

Dear Mr Mundell
I am aware of the tremendous support you have already given the Campaign to fight for the right to wear this medal and I thank you for that. I have recently been in contact with Lt.Col. Martin Young, who commanded 19th Infantry Brigade Provost Unit, RMP in Borneo and I am pleased to say that has pledged his support. Whilst I was on the phone to him, I mentioned a possible solution to the impasse, which would satisfy all parties without causing any loss of face or compromise to any deeply held convictions. The Colonel suggested that I pass this on to you.
August 2006 sees the 49th Anniversary of Merdeka (Malaysian Independence) and that month also sees the 40th Anniversary of the end of Confrontation, which was effectively the end of 18 years of conflict in that region. Next month sees the first of the National Veteran's Day events, recently announced by the Government. Last week they announced that there are to be celebrations for the 25th Anniversary of the Falklands Conflict in 2007, something which has never been done to commemorate Korea, Cyprus, or Malaya/Borneo. Clearly someone in a decision making capacity within HMG has a slender grasp of British history over the last 50 years, such that they can ignore all but the most recent conflicts. Of course, if I were a cynical old veteran, I would read into this political bias - the electorate will remember the Falklands because it was fought in the full glare of media coverage. And it is also in he living memory of the younger elements of those with a vote. Those who can recall earlier conflicts are into their 60's and 70's and so their voices do not carry the same strident message (or should that be votes?).
My suggestion is that the HD Committee reconsider their original decision and allow unrestricted wearing of the PJM on a one-off caveat that recognises the special significance of the year 2006. This is not for them to admit that they were wrong, but that they have reconsidered in the light of "fresh evidence" and "special circumstances". The HD Committee will thereby have extricated itself from a ridiculous situation, HMG will be able to claim a timely piece of veteran-friendly action and we veterans can get on with what's left of our lives - growing old disgracefully. Everybody wins, including common sense, a commodity sadly lacking at present in the corridors of power.
I hope that you feel you can use this suggestion on behalf of 35 000 veterans. Our plea is simple - please allow us to formally wear the medal awarded so gracefully to us by a friendly nation.


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
Bravo Gerry....wonderfully well put!


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: David Mundell 
GerryL wrote:
so I've sent this email to him.

Dear Mr Mundell....



Well writ (sic) Gerry.


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Great Gerry. I asked in the other forum if Lt. Col Young was with KOSB but you have answered my question here. Thanks again for your help. Andy.

View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 8 of 9
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
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