THE PINGAT JASA MALAYSIA (PJM) - AND WHY ELIGIBLE BRITISH RECIPIENTS MAY BOTH RECEIVE AND WEAR THE MEDAL
THE LONDON GAZETTE - 3RD MAY 1968
(You can view and/or download the document in PDF format here: http://www.fight4thepjm.org/Correspondence/Why_The_PJM_Can_Be_Worn_London_Gazette_v3.pdf)
Introduction
A London Gazette Notice dated 3rd May 1968 officially promulgates the news that eligible private citizens have The Queen’s approval to wear a medal She has approved for acceptance. All parties agree that the Notice is extant and applies as much today as it did in 1968.
The London Gazette is the accepted organ through which official Notices regarding Honours, Decorations and Medals are promulgated.
We have been told that The Queen approved acceptance of the PJM and, because She did not decree that the medal should not be worn, the Gazette Notice applies to the PJM.
Those eligible under the Notice are those not in Crown Service on the day the medal was approved for conferral by The Queen – and that applies to the vast majority of those eligible for the PJM who had left the services many years before the medal was conferred in January 2006.
It should be noted that ex-service personnel are specifically instructed to abide by Gazette Notices.
Civil servants have endeavoured to circumvent the official Notice and have stated that it is their decree that matters and not that of the Sovereign. We do not agree.
The London Gazette – 3rd May 1968
On the 12th March 2007 the Cabinet Office issued a six-page “full statement” setting out its justification for trying to withhold formal permission for the PJM to be worn. That statement omitted all reference to the following London Gazette Notice of 3rd May 1968:
“The QUEEN has been graciously pleased to approve that Orders, Decorations and Medals conferred with Her Majesty’s permission upon United Kingdom citizens not being servants of the Crown by the Heads or Governments of Commonwealth countries as defined above, or of foreign States, may in all cases be worn by the recipients without restriction.”
It is our view that that notice promulgates The Queen’s permission for eligible British recipients of the PJM to wear their medal.
Oddly, the civil servants in the Cabinet Office do not agree.
The Cabinet Office View
When the Notice was brought to the attention of the Cabinet Office, their reply acknowledged the existence of the Notice and they went on to reject The Queen’s decree saying it did not apply to recipients of the PJM. Their sole justification was a reference to paragraph 14 of the defunct (by their own admission) 1969 “Part A - Regulations concerning the Acceptance and Wearing by Persons in the Service of the Crown of Orders Decorations and Medals conferred by Heads or Governments of Foreign States and by Members of the Commonwealth Overseas of which The Queen is not the Head of State”.
The Cabinet Office position is that eligibility rests on whether you were in Crown Service at the time of PJM service. Our view is that eligibility rests on whether you were in Crown Service at the time the medal was conferred in 2006.
The key is to understand what was intended by those who were party to the drafting and publishing of the Gazette Notice – the Notice that The Queen approved - and it is on their explanation that we rely, not on that of the current and prejudiced incumbents in the Cabinet Office who have reversed the Notice’s meaning in order to justify their argument!
The following notes explain why we are confident that our advice is correct.
Why both the 1969 Regulations and their selected paragraph cannot be relevant
• Government Departments have stated that the 1969 Regulations were replaced in 2005 by new Foreign Decorations Rules – the 1969 Regulations are therefore defunct. (NB The 2005 Rules do not contain a paragraph with similar wording to the 1969 defunct Regulations)
• It is inappropriate and misleading to call on defunct internal guidance notes to deny an extant public Notice approved by The Sovereign and published in the London Gazette, the ‘long-established’ formal channel for promulgating such information.
• The 1969 Regulations would in any event be irrelevant because they refer to the background regarding the acceptance and wearing of medals that might be offered by a Foreign country – they are not designed to address the position of medals the status of which has already been decided as is the case of the PJM which The Queen has approved for acceptance.
• The 1969 Regulations are divided into two parts. Part A refers to those in Crown Service. Part B refers to those not in Crown Service. The Cabinet Office selected paragraph is from Part A (those in Crown Service at the time the medal request is being considered) and does not appear in Part B which refers to those not in Crown Service when the medal request is under consideration, i.e. the vast majority of those eligible for the PJM.
• The 1969 Regulations specify “These Regulations do not relate to awards of campaign or commemorative war medals” and the Cabinet Office has said in its ‘full statement’ that it doesn’t matter which nomenclature is applied to the PJM. On that basis, the 1969 Regulations would be immaterial even if they were extant, which they are not.
Having established the irrelevance of the Cabinet Office’s sole reference for dismissing the London Gazette Notice, there are many positive references to confirm that the Notice does indeed apply to the majority of those eligible for the PJM, i.e. those who had retired and were not in Crown service at the time The Queen approved conferral of the PJM on British citizens in January 2006.
Why the London Gazette applies to eligible private citizens enabling the majority to wear their PJM
• The London Gazette Notice is extant - the Notice has not been rescinded or amended.
• The Notice applies to past (pre-Notice) and future awards.
• The Queen has approved acceptance of the PJM therefore the Notice applies to the PJM.
• The natural meaning of the words in the Notice is clear – those eligible can wear their medal if they were private citizens when the medal was conferred (in January 2006).
• All doubt as to the definition of eligibility is expunged by the explanation of eligibility promulgated at the time by the contemporaneous HD Committee and other interested parties (which included the Foreign/Commonwealth Offices):
“The new policy applies to awards already conferred as well as to any which may be bestowed upon United Kingdom private citizens in the future.”
and
“Crown servants who have retired may not take advantage of the new policy in regard to awards conferred upon them during their official life time.”
• That explanation given at the time ensures that there is no doubt. The combined result is that the recipient is eligible if he or she is a private citizen at the time that The Queen gives her permission for the award to be conferred.
• We have support for our view from an unexpected quarter. When addressing the matter of Dual Nationality in their recent “full explanation”, the Cabinet Office states that it is the current position that is relevant – i.e. not the status at the time the service was carried out.
• ‘Confer’ must follow ‘approval’. If there is any doubt about the interpretation of ‘confer’, it is long-established practise to refer to requests to present a decoration or medal as “proposals to confer” (note the future tense). The ‘confer’ happens after the proposal has been accepted – in the case of the PJM the Cabinet Office tells us that the proposal was made in March 2005, and the notification of that proposal being accepted was in January 2006 and so the medal was conferred on or about that date.
Why we must take into account the MoD Defence Instruction and Notice 10-002 of January 2006
• The Queen has approved acceptance of the PJM and as a result the 1968 London Gazette Notice applies.
• MoD DIN 10-002 of January 2006 specifically states that ex-service personnel should adhere to the DIN under which it is incumbent on them to conform to London Gazette Notices such as that of the 3rd May 1968.
Summary
In correspondence over two years regarding the PJM, no Government Department has referred to the 1969 Regulations or even hinted at its relevance to the PJM. One can only surmise why they should they wish to do so now.
The Cabinet Office have had to rely on defunct Regulations and on just one guidance provision within them - a provision that is not relevant to the PJM which is a medal that has already been approved for acceptance by The Queen.
Turning to the explanation of those who created the Gazette Notice at the time, the Cabinet Office have not only changed the recommendation of the contemporaneous Committee and Government Departments, they have actually reversed it. Yet in their “full statement”, and on many previous occasions when trying to defend the 5-year myth, they say that is something they will never do.
The fact of the matter is that the recommendation to the Queen sought Her approval for the medal to be accepted. Once Her Majesty approved acceptance, the PJM fell within the auspices of the London Gazette Notice. If that was not the intention, the recommendation should not have been put before The Queen.
The London Gazette Notice is extant, applies to the PJM, and applies to British citizens who were private citizens on the 31 January 2006 when The Queen approved acceptance of the medal.
As a consequence of the above, it is our firm view that those not “in their official life time” on the 31st January 2006 have the Queen’s approval to wear their PJM on formal occasions.
[10th April 2007]
_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
URRAH,IF BERNY BOOTIFUL THE TURKEY MAN ,WAS SPITTING FEATHERS RECENTLY,MY PILLOWS IN THE POST TO NIL/REFF URRAH 
LETS HAVE AN EXPLANTION ,AFTER ALL WE ARE ALWAYS TOLD IF YOU'VE NOTHING TO FEAR IF YOU'VE NOTHING TO HIDE,URRAH,URRAH,URRAH.THIS SILENCE IS ACTUALLY A DEAFENING CONDEMNATION AS A REFUSAL TO ANSWER AND REMAIN SILENT ,CAN IN LAW ,THESE DAYS BE POINTED OUT TO A JURY ,TO FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHY,NUFF SAID.