Gerald Law
Posted on 14 Dec 2010 12:43 pm (Report this annotation)

This response from Lord Howell regurgitates the usual obfuscation supplied from the non-elected HD Committee. He states that the reason for the so-called 5 year rule is because those in office at the time of the initial consideration are better placed to assess the merits of a medal award. Maybe so, but the PJM was not available at the time of the Borneo Conflict - it was instituted by the Malaysians who then decided that service to their nation going back to 1957 qualified for the award. This decision was there's, and there's alone, to make and any attempt by British politicians/Civil Servants to impose British "rules" of qualification is an insult to the Malaysians and a mark of disrespect to British Veterans. It is simply the case that the PJM does not and never can be, included within the compass of British awards.Lord Howell admits the Russian award was approved for unrestricted acceptance and wear, so I would like to know what different criteria were applied to that decision that are not deemed valid for the PJM?

John Feltham
Posted on 14 Dec 2010 12:59 pm (Report this annotation)

The PJM is not a UK decoration. Its is a Malaysian award, therefore it is a Foreign Award and as such is covered by the London Gazette notice given under the hand of HM The Queen.

"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 of Governments of Commonwealth countries as defined above, or of foreign states, may in all cases be worn by the recipients without restriction."

To my knowledge, there has not been a notice in the London Gazette rescinding that notice.

London Gazette Notice, dated 3rd May 1968.

John Cooper
Posted on 14 Dec 2010 1:59 pm (Report this annotation)

I am grateful to Lord Touhig for his question, I trust there will be more to follow to ensure justice to fellow Britons

Lord Howell really needs to see the anomalies that the Cabinet Office conjure up at pantomime season time, with respect he should not take at face value what Civil Servants in the blinkered Cabinet Office tell him but listen to some of his own parties manifesto pledges about injusticies, do get a grip!

andrew nicoll
Posted on 14 Dec 2010 3:03 pm (Report this annotation)

The present Coalition Government issued a paper headed Coalition – Programme for Government. In this they gave a pledge to reinstate the Military Covenant which was broken by the previous government.

The Military Covenant is an undertaking to every British soldier (and veterans) which in return for their pledge to make the ultimate sacrifice, they are promised value and respect.

Is our Prime Minister and his coalition government going to honour this pledge to the Military Covenant or are they just going to make another cast iron ‘U’ turn (like the university fees!) and just ignore the attempts by unelected civil servants to destroy our democratic right to wear in public an honourable medal we have earned in the mosquito infested jungle and stinking swamps of Malaysia and Borneo.

Lord Howell says that ‘the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (the HD Committee) decided to make an exception to the five year rule to allow the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal to be accepted but not worn’. So are we British citizens to be ruled by a committee of civil servants?

Lord Howell does not appear to be able to accept that a foreign medal issued by a foreign country, like the PJM, is not a British award and he also does not appear to be able to accept that the PJM was awarded by the King and Government of Malaysia to British veterans who are now all civilians not under the rule of Whitehall. Perhaps, his previous employment as a senior civil servant prevents him from being aware that there is civilian life outside Whitehall and the House of Lords.

STUART MATHEWSON
Posted on 14 Dec 2010 10:17 pm (Report this annotation)

The Government can make laws retrospectively, and can do anything they want if and when it suits them. WW1 soldiers who were executed for so-called cowardice were rightly given pardons decades after they were "court martialled." The Govt can overturn decisions made decades before. Medals can easily be awarded restrospectively too if the Govt were inclined to do so. Who runs this country, politicians or civil servants???

Paul Alders
Posted on 15 Dec 2010 7:57 am (Report this annotation)

Not only has the 5 year rule been broken so many times that it is hardly a rule at all; also this rule is only intended to apply to medals being accepted and has nothing what-so-ever to do with the wearing or non wearing of medals.
Once a foreign medal has been accepted London Gazette Notice 5057 of the 3rd May 1968 applies.
Civil Servants have no legal right to ban the wearing of the PJM.

Barry Fleming
Posted on 17 Dec 2010 4:18 pm (Report this annotation)

Interesting, isn't it, that Lord Howell's reply specifically fails to point out that the Russian Medal was accepted for wear (embarrassing for HMG).

He also fails to point out a second embarrassment for this government and the honours system. He knowingly omits the Malta 50th Anniversary Medal that was not only approved for wear over 50 years after the event, it was also an enforced double medal.

So we can conclude that Malaysia takes second place to Russia, and that the Queen's favourite holiday island (the Maltese allegedly threatened to cancel Her holiday visit if their medal was not accepted) has more clout than Malaysia.

The Honours system is all wrong and full of lies and deceit - and is politically driven (surprise, surprise).

Hamish Waters
Posted on 17 Dec 2010 11:38 pm (Report this annotation)

I am a dual national who is a recipient of the Malaysian medal due to Service in the British Army in Borneo. I am in the ludicrous situation of being able to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia with the blessing of the Queen of Australia. The Cabinet office in Whitehall advises that I would be discourteous to the Queen (of the UK)should I wear the medal. The committee who dreamt up this ridiculous ruling provide excellent material for a Monty Python sketch.

John Rushton
Posted on 18 Dec 2010 3:49 pm (Report this annotation)

Lord Howell, as one would expect, accepts the information given him by his Civil Servants. One would also expect this information to be honest, accurate and without favour. Sadly Lord Howell, you have not been given the full facts you need in order to respond to Don Touhig. Maybe in future you should be more circumspect in accepting what your Civil Servants tell you, as the truth, the whole truth....etc..

As the Civil Servants in your Ministry have been ignoring these facts for nearly six years, and ignoring the rights of thousands of Veterans, they can hardly claim to be in ignorance of their omissions.

They made a wrong decision regarding the permission to wear the PJM, they know it, we know it and they know we know it; but rather than admit it they have blocked, twisted and been dishonest, treating Veterans with contempt.

They even try to sweep away the clear and unambiguous entry in the London Gazette of May 3rd 1968, which clearly give Veterans the right to wear this medal unless they remain Crown Servants.

One Civil Servant infamously referred to the PJM as "something out of a cornflake packet".

What arrogance, what offence to Veterans and the 519(and their loved ones) who did not return.

Conscious omission is a lie. The Civil Servants may therefore have lied to a Minister who has unwittingly repeated that lie in Parliament.

Strong language? Not at all. When briefing Lord Howell (who would be the first to tell you that he knows little about the 'Honours' system) they have knowingly omitted vital information that Lord Touhig was entitled to receive.

In addition to the Suez and Russian medals that they have admitted to (but didn't tell Lord Touhig that the Russian medal could be worn but the Malaysian medal could not), why did they knowingly omit:

1. UNOMIG, awared after seven years;
2. UNSCOM, awarded after eight years;
3. UNOCHA, awarded after eight years;
4. UN SSM Op Cheshire, awarded after five years;
5. GSM 1962 “Dhofar”, awarded after six years;
6. GSM 1962 “Air Operations Iraq” , awarded after six years;
7. United Nations Special Service Medal with bar UNOCHA (Humanitarian Aid), awarded after seven years;

and ...

8. The Malta “GC 50th Anniversary of the end of the War Medal” which was also, like the Russion medal, an enforced double medal and awarded after 50 years!!!!

So much for the Armed Forces Covenant and treating Veterans with respect.

Make no mistake, the members of the HD Committee are accountable to no one it seems and hide there chicanery by their secrecy and pay no heed to Freedom of Information requests, which they insist does not apply to their meetings / communications.

It seems that the present Government is no better than the last Government in dealing with this group of unelected and unaccountable Mandarins.

John Cooper
Posted on 18 Dec 2010 5:35 pm (Report this annotation)

As an addendum

The burning issue to the question of should permission be granted or not granted to UK Citizens to wear the PJM. The answer is buried in the Cabinet Office files, the CO will not permit these to be seen under Section 37 of the FoIA.

My understanding is that Her Majesty has never refused her Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen to wear the PJM but that Her Majesties Government has done this on HER behalf.

The CO will not give a definitive YES/NO answer as I have requested, odd that isn't it as the whole nation is in favour of our campaign as opposed to a dozen or so unelected representatives purportedly called Civil Servants

My Lord Howell you really do need to pursue this matter with some urgency, perhaps your Lordship might like to hear 'our' side of the story too!!

Michael Barton
Posted on 18 Dec 2010 8:27 pm (Report this annotation)

So far as I remember the Pingat Jasa Malaysia was struck by the Malaysian Government in advance of and hopefully to be worn by veterans of the Malaya Emergency and the Borneo Confrontation during the 50th anniversary of Merdeka and the founding of Malaysia in 1957. It was offered as a way of thanking all veterans who simply served or died in defence of the emergent nation during its struggle against Communist insurgents.

In August 2007 I was amongst some 70 other veterans who had been in Malaya on the original Merdeka Day, invited to attend a ceremony of thanks in Edinburgh. This ceremony was staged in a pavilion specially flown over from Malaysia and we were honoured by a Malaysian Govt minister who gave a very moving address to us, our wives and families and 'festival' visitors from all parts of the world who, although moved initially by curiosity were, like us vets, soon moved to tears by the minister's words. Standing there being so honoured all us old soldiers (including two brigadiers) were respecting our hosts by wearing the PJM regardless of so called Civil Service protocol.

At the same time, in Kuala Lumpur, other veterans were celebrating and wearing their PJMs under a vey brief amnesty of the 'non-wear-rule' due to the fact that Prince Andrew was also there representing his mother the Queen.

Why that inexplicable anomaly, and why the continuing refusal to allow us PJMers (in particular) to wear a medal dearly earned by so many of our comrades and denied to us old men and women who also did our bit in the early survival of a now successful Commonwealth nation?

Ernest David Dilley
Posted on 18 Dec 2010 11:23 pm (Report this annotation)

I quote from Lord Howell's reply "It is based on the considered view that those closest to the activities in question are those best able to judge the appropriateness or otherwise of honours and decorations.

In 2005, the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (the HD committee) decided to make an exception to the five-year rule to allow the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal to be accepted, but not worn".

The decision of the HD committee, which incidentally rarely meets, most business apparently being carried out by 'phone,or internal contact,or memoranda. No records of meetings are kept, we are told.

Following their decision, The Foreign Secretary at that time, Jack Straw, ordered a review the result of which, after several months, was produced in Nov 2005 and placed in the House of Commons Library. This included a specially newly written Part C which effectively precluded the PJM from being worn. A statement was made in the House of Commons in 2006 by a Minister to the effect that it [PJM] can be accepted but not worn which was and is contrary to the rules of the various Departments involved at that time.

The advisers to the HDC, themselves constitute the HDC Committee; ie they in fact brief themselves and recommend what they will to HM, a recommendation which is forwarded by the Queens Private Secretary and not by the Secretary or Chairman of the HDC (confused?); it is after all not a Palace matter per se but a political judgement taken by Ministers on the advice of those whose purpose it to present all pro and anti facts and advise the Ministers and others, and not appear to be following their own agenda. This committee which acts in secret declares that it is responsible to no one but HM.

I cannot understand why it is that a note on Palace headed paper was sent to the then Foreign Secretary on behalf of her Majesty, when its contents directly opposed the sign manual edict in the London Gazette dated 3 May 1968, which has not been rescinded or amended, and surely cannot be changed by Departmental
Rules which included new rules and as I said, a Part C
precluding the PJM from being worn. Nobody, I think would deny that the Government are occupied with matters of Nationsal importance; it just need a firm government action to stop this totally unfair discrimination against British Veterans now running into its 6th year (of campaigning) when their Comrades in Arms the Anzacs,Fijians and others are able to wear their PJMs without constraint.