Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Cabinet Office Reply.
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Cabinet Office Reply. 
Here is a letter from the Cabinet Office dated 29th. May, 2009, in reply to a recent Freedom of Information request.
You will note that I have been refused, under the usual exemptions to the FOI Act, the 1218th Report on the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) which is referred to in Sir James Wilson's letter of the 22nd February, 2001.
I should explain that this letter is to HM the Queen's Private Secretary ( a civil servant and not a member of Royalty) and the report contains the revised rules on the acceptance and wear of foreign awards.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
The open and transparent Government Gonad keeps talking about Andy! 10 more minutes and the night of the long knives may be sharpened on the Whetstone

Power to the People...............

HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Cabinet Office. 
In 1969, after a number of years discussions and meetings involving FCO, MoD, Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister of the day and other members of parliament, the International Rule, which prevent UK private citizens from wearing foreign awards and medals was amended and new Regulations were introduced. Her Majesty the Queen was consulted on the draft regulations which she approved with the Royal Sign Manual (her signature) and an official decree was published in the London Gazette showing that Her Majesty the Queen had most graciously agreed that where a foreign award or medal was approved for UK citizens not being crown servants it could be worn without restriction.

In 2001 Sir James Wilson, then Cabinet Secretary and Chair of the Honours and Decorations Committee, submitted a letter to HM’s Private Secretary for HM’s approval and enclosing the 1218 th report of the HD Committee which contained revised rules to the acceptance and wear of foreign orders, decorations and medals.

A). the HD Committee did not meet to discuss this revision of the rules on the grant of foreign orders, decorations and medals and no minutes of any meeting are available.

B). no member of parliament was involved in any discussions in regard to this revision of the rules.

C). no copy of these revised rules were deposited with the House of Commons Library.

D). it is said that HM the Queen gave her approval to the revision of the rules but no Royal Warrant, Royal Sign Manual, or any other document signed by HM the Queen is available.

E). these rules introduced for the first time the double medal rule.

F). the impression given that the Chair of the HD Committee reports to Her Majesty the Queen is somewhat exaggerated in that the Chair reports to Her Majesty the Queen through Her Private Secretary who is also a member of the HD Committee.

In 2005 the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw MP, set out the Rules Governing the Acceptance and Wearing of Foreign Orders, Decorations and Medals by Citizens of the United Kingdom and Her Overseas Territories and placed a copy in the House of Commons Library. These were the rules revised in 2001.

The situation to date is that rules by which civil servants can instruct UK private citizens not to wear a medal were compiled by a committee who never met, never involved parliament or individual members of parliament and turned the clock back to Tudor times (late 16th century) when the non-wear of foreign medals was first introduced.

Whether Her Majesty the Queen did approve these new rules and the non-wear of the PJM is known only to her and her Private Secretary as there is no documentary evidence or public disclosure – like the 1969 London Gazette publication – to show that this is in fact the case.

The Honours Secretary at the FCO said these revised rules were HMG’s rules and she denied our interpretation that they were ‘in-house’ rules. HMG’s rules do not apply to UK private citizens and can only apply to those under HMG control.

It is a well known fact amongst legal eagles and lawmakers that ‘you can never enforce a law which the people think is unfair’. The non-wear rule of the PJM placed upon UK citizens only, within the Commonwealth, is an unfair rule and it singles them out for special treatment which is known by most as ‘discrimination’, something which is illegal in our Human Rights Law. This discrimination is also compounded by the fact that certain UK citizens were allowed to wear the PJM for a temporary period, only in Malaysia during their 50th. Anniversary celebrations, yet those who attended such celebrations in the UK (on Malaysian soil) were still singled out for special treatment by not having permission to wear it.

The establishment, who keep changing their story like an errant schoolboy, now say it is not a matter of law or discrimination, but a matter of etiquette. But this code of conduct (etiquette) is a conventional government attitude which has no place in the outside world.

We elect a parliament to defend our rights and freedoms and it is about time the present parliament sat up and took notice of what is being perpetrated unlawfully in their name.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Etiquet be damned, indeed, Andy. It is the present mores (manners and customs) of The Establishment that needs to be examined. During our fight so far we PJMers have proved that Establishment mores include large amounts of obfuscation and frequent use of the deaf-ear policy, and your above inclusions show that nothing has changed......SO FAR.

Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
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