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
ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION.
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION. 
The FCO are now saying that decisions on the PJM are being dealt with by the MOD and we have been given the email address of Richard Coney’s successor at the MOD to ask about the PJM. We have sent him an email but to date there has been no reply. Some will remember that the MOD has consistently stated that they are not responsible for the PJM and that all enquiries about this medal should be addressed to the FCO. Well, apparently this is all changed now.

In response to a question about Gurkhas the FCO answered -

Ghurkhas serve as part of the British Armed Forces and are subject to British Military Law. On leaving the Service the same rules relating to Honours and awards apply to Ghurkhas as they do British born Citizens and the definition of Crown servant still
applies. This is highlighted in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regulations concerning acceptance and wear (section A, point 14) as produced in 1969. It reads:
Persons who have retired from the service of the Crown remain subject to these regulations in so far as concerns the acceptance and wear of Orders, decorations or Medals offered in respect of services rendered before their retirement.
Therefore, the HD committee’s final decision regarding the wearing of the PJM is applicable to Ghurkhas.

When it was pointed out that Section 14 of the 1969 regulations do not mention the words ‘and wear’ and only state ‘as far as concerns the acceptance of Orders’ this was agreed and it was pointed out that this error was made by the MOD and not the FCO as the FCO had pasted and copied it from a report from the MOD.
It has also been stated that a Malaysian citizen who served in the British army and was awarded the PJM through the MOD in London and presented with it in Kuala Lumpur during the Malaysian 50th. Anniversary is permitted to wear because he was a Malaysian citizen in 1957-66 and it is a Malaysian medal; an Iban tracker who served with the Sarawak Rangers, a British Colonial controlled unit and was attached to the British army under British military law (1955-58) is entitled to wear yet he did not become a Malaysian citizen until after 1963 when Sarawak became independent and part of Malaysia.
They went on to say that the rules refer to British Nationals.

The points in contention here are –
1. Part A of the 1969 Regulations make no reference whatsoever to British nationals or British citizens. Part B of the same Regulations does deal with British citizens so the regulations make it quite clear that Part A deals specifically with Crown Servants.
2. Section 14 of the 1969 Regulations specifically deals with retired Crown Servants and it states – ‘Persons who have retired from the service of the Crown remain subject to these regulations in so far as it concerns the acceptance of Orders, decorations or medals offered in respect of services rendered before their retirement’.

By the fallacious use of these regulations they are attempting to deny the right of British citizens to wear the PJM granted acceptance by the Queen as per the Royal Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual publicized in the London Gazette dated 3rd. May, 1968. By doing so they have to revert to the status of British citizens who served in the forces during the eligibility dates of the PJM, namely 1957 to 1966.

This means that they are using the date the medal was conferred and not the date it was accepted. By doing so they are involving the whole Commonwealth as New Zealand and Australia did not opt out of the British Honours system until 1975.

In the six page report submitted by the joint Cabinet Office, MOD and FCO, they state that we cannot claim discrimination against British citizens because Australia and New Zealand have their own rules on foreign awards and are autonomous and independent of each other but surely this is only effective from 1975.
So, British citizens cannot wear the PJM and are not covered by the London Gazette Royal Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual published in 1968 because they were Crown servants who served in the British armed forces after 1957 but exceptions have been made for the following who are allowed to wear -

Malaysian citizens who served in HM Forces – British citizens who later became dual Australian citizens – Sarawak citizens (Iban trackers) who became eligible for the PJM for service between 1955 and 1958 and did not become Malaysian citizens until 1963 – a Chinese Malaysian citizen who served 22 years in the British army - other non-British citizens who served in HM Forces (Irish (Eire), Channel Isles, Greek Cypriots, Canadian and Australian) and other Commonwealth nations who did not opt out of the British honours system until 1975.

One exception is poor old Johnny Gurkha whom we are told cannot wear the PJM because their service in the British army under British military rule prevents this. No doubt the military advisers in the HD Committee failed to take into account the Army Act, 1955, and the Brigade of Gurkha Conditions of Service, but this is another argument.

They have changed the wording in their rules, they have added a false interpretation to their rules, they have made exceptions to their rules, they have ignored certain nationalities who should have been involved in their rules, they have ignored the fact that their rules do not apply to civilians and the relatives of those who were killed or have died, and they even include those in the double medal rule who have never had another medal, and they ignore the basic democratic rule that civilians cannot be deprived of their freedom of movement and choice to wear or not to wear medals in public, so where is the integrity and justice in such an inconsistent policy.

In their six page report they whine that veterans have questioned the integrity of members of the HD Committee and profess that they are crown and public servants who are required to maintain high standards of fairness, impartiality and integrity.
Where is the fairness in refusing people the right to wear the PJM when the rules do not apply to them. Where is the impartiality when others including British nationals) who served in HM Forces are favoured above British citizens. Where is the integrity in changing their rules, telling lies about their rules and generally making the rules fit their case

In our democracy we vote for politicians to represent us in parliament and these politicians enlist the aid of others, such as the civil service, to help them but they are not given the authority to make rules against citizens or to tamper with the Royal Prerogative. If the Royal Prerogative is used it should be done through parliament and not authorized by any civil servant. A committee which affects the liberty and freedom of our citizens whilst dwelling in a world of universal deceit must be disbanded and replaced by a more open and accountable system.

The unfair and deceitful actions perpetrated by civil servants to justify a non-wear rule against the honourable Pingat Jasa Malaysia is no less than ETNIC DISCRIMINATION against British citizens and breaches the Human Rights Act, and possibly the Race Relations Act.

According to our ‘legal eagle’ it has been a general legal presumption that since 1689 that any limitation on the liberty of a person to do what he wants is interpreted in favour of liberty.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Barry,

Can you get rid of that wee face in paragraph 4. It should read 1955 - 58 but this face appeared and I cannot delete it. Thanks. Andy.



Last edited by mcdangle on Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
mcdangle wrote:
Bary, Ca you get rid of that wee face in paragraph 4. It should read 1955 - 58 but this face appeared and I cannot delete it. Thanks. Andy.


Dunnit, Andy. I disabled 'Smilies' Cool.

Nothing should detract from your brilliant exposée of their discriminatory actions.

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 MOD / FCO 
McD,

They wriggle and turn in a most impressive way. They really believe that this tactic will eventually wear us out like they have done with others, and we will give up.

BUT HOW WRONG THEY ARE.

They think they can blind us with science i.e. conveniently created or re written rules and regulations.

BUT HOW WRONG THEY ARE.

They think we are only worth a "Cornflake packet" medal and we will give in.

BUT HOW TERRIBLY WRONG THEY ARE.

PINGAT KAMI - HAK KAMI



_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
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