George F wrote:
"I have also been invited to help with the fight to receive and wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia. I declined as I oppose it. There have already been three British Medals (with six clasps) and three Commonwealth Medals covering most of the same period. Again this is my view, not a result of any external pressure, rather the opposite." (written by Lt Col Tinson in a letter to Medal News)
What concerns me is that this statement, clearly intended as a balancing act against an earlier criticism in Medal News that Lt Col Tinson erred on the 'generous' side of accepting awards, seems to imply that we are a bunch of gong chasers. I am sure that that is not what he meant because in his book he produces an enlightened and pragmatic approach to the problems endemic in the British system of Orders, Decorations and Medals.
I would like to make the following points regarding Col A R Tinson’s letter to Medal News:
1. He seems to fall into the same trap as the very establishment of which he is critical in his book - he is judging a Foreign award (the PJM) by British Medals criteria. The former is administered by the FCO, the latter by the MoD. While some criteria overlap between the two Departments, there are others where they take opposing views, for example in connection with Commemorative/Anniversary awards.
2. He falls into another trap he quotes against the establishment in his book by using spurious data to support the case for denying medals without justification - he infers nine medals coincide with the PJM. They do not.
3. The fallacious reference to nine awards specifically gives the impression that those who support the wearing of the PJM are gong-chasers or supporters of gong-chasers. I am surprised at that because he knows his medals. Consequently I can only conclude that he is trying to make a point (detrimental to our cause) in order to justify something he said in Medal News - and the PJM is again the innocent victim of other people’s problems.
4. The nine awards he refers to are probably those shown at
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/documents/Medals_awarded_Malaysia_1948-1966.pdf
5. Of those awards only four apply and, as noted on the above reference, the result is that the majority of those eligible for the PJM are not eligible for a British award.
Colonel Tinson’s letter is fundamentally misleading in relation to the PJM and, if read without an explanation will encourage some to take an anti-PJM stance. This would not have been deliberate - he is an honourable man. But the letter, which will be read with glee by the MoD (Richard Coney) and the FCO (Chris Edge), is damaging and I hope he writes again to set the record straight.
The PJM is a Foreign award and should be assessed accordingly. The scope of the PJM is wider than any British medallic award. Double-medalling is a specious argument.
Barry
_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia