![Reply to topic](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/lang_english/post_reply.gif) |
Page 1 of 1
|
Author |
Message |
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Chairmans message
Dear fellow PJM'ers and Association members all,
It is with considerable regret, and barely controlled anger, that I must report to you the decision of the HD Committee....not to put too fine a point on it lads, they have 'turned us down'.
This despite the masses of information we produced in repudiation of their original decision...their rejection does not begin to answer the valid questions we posed...it is completely unacceptable to us and we, therefore, categorically refuse to accept it. We suspect that the hundreds of MPs who support our cause will have something to say about this, too.
This fight continues!
We are down....but not defeated.
We are wounded...but not slain.
We'll lay us down... to rest awhile,
And soon arise....To fight again !!!
Your Fight4 Team leaders remain solidly united in this...'Look to your weapons' and prepare yourselves for a renewed offensive boys! Phase III of this just fight will take a very different form to Phase II - and the civil servants have brought this upon themselves.
John 'Jock' Fenton.
Chairman: Fight4thePJM Association.
'Pingat Kami - Hak Kami'
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:46 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
lo_rre
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 41
|
Jock,
Any chance putting the statement from the HD committee up on the forum so we all can read it?
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:58 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Feltham
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 764
Location: Townsville, North Queensland
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) PJM STATEMENT
PJM STATEMENT
On 31 January 2006 the government announced that Her Majesty The Queen had graciously approved the recommendation by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals that veterans and others eligible should exceptionally be allowed to accept the Pingat Jasa Malaysia, offered by the King and Government of Malaysia, but that in accordance with normal policy and practice official permission to wear the medal should not be granted. Since then, a number of people have said they believe that this decision was wrong; and that those entitled to accept the Medal should also be permitted formally to wear the PJM.
The government recognises the strength of feeling of some individuals and the Committee has therefore considered the matter again very carefully. After examination of the issues involved, the policies underpinning the operation of the UK honours system and particular application of these policies in the case of the PJM, it has concluded that the original decision to allow exceptions to two of the major principles of the British Honours System – the double medalling rule and the five year rule – should be upheld: entitled individuals should be allowed to accept the PJM, but there is no official permission to wear it
In re-affirming the decision of 31 January, we are aware that it will disappoint those who wish to wear the PJM. We have, however, made very significant exceptions to the normal procedures. This decision reflects a major relaxation of the normal protocol on acceptance of foreign medals. These exceptions have been made in order to mark the importance of British involvement in the Malaysian campaign in the histories both of Malaysia and the UK in the years 1957-1966. We hope that all will now agree to move ahead in a spirit of mutual cooperation and understanding.
A more detailed explanation of the reasons behind this decision is being placed on the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence (Veterans Agency) and Cabinet Office websites.
________________
THE PINGAT JASA MALAYSIA, AND WHY ELIGIBLE BRITISH RECIPIENTS MAY EXCEPTIONALLY RECEIVE, BUT NOT WEAR, THE MEDAL.
In response to a question tabled in the House of Lords on 11 January 2005, on whether a medal could be accepted if offered by the Malaysian Government, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean quoted the official position on foreign awards: –
“Her Majesty’s Government's rules on the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards preclude the acceptance of medals for events in the distant past or more than five years previously. In addition, the rules do not allow for a foreign award to be accepted if a British award has been given for the same service. Eligible veterans of the Emergency or Confrontation in Malaya should already have received the Malaya Bar to their General Service Medal.
“All British citizens require permission from HMG to accept and wear foreign state awards. HMG have, to date, received no request from the Malaysian Government for this medal to be presented to British ex-servicemen who are veterans of the Emergency or Confrontation in Malaya.”
A formal request for permission to award the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) in recognition of service in the Emergency was made by the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister in March 2005. In January 2006 the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) recommended to Her Majesty The Queen a special exception to the rules governing the acceptance and wear of non-British awards, to allow the Malaysian authorities to present the PJM and those who are eligible, to receive it.
It was agreed that the exception should be made in order to recognise this generous gesture by the King and Government of Malaysia, and their wish to present the PJM in recognition of service given by the many veterans, and others, in the difficult years immediately after Malaysian independence.
Official permission was not given to allow the Pingat Jasa Malaysia to be worn. Although there have been exceptions in the past and the guidance is applied flexibly it is long-standing policy that non-British awards will not be approved or permitted for events or service:
- That took place more than five years before initial consideration, or in connection with events that took place in the distant past (e.g. commemorative awards);
- If the recipient has received or is expected to receive a British award for the same service.
1.The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals was established around the time of the Second World War when it was known as the HW Committee. It is made up of officials who advise The Sovereign direct: that is, advice does not go through Ministers, although the Prime Minister is represented on the Committee.
The latter line is also normally followed where a British award has been considered but has not been deemed to be merited for the same service. Allowing the PJM to be accepted has therefore required a special exception to two of the principles governing the acceptance and wear of foreign awards. Similar exceptions were made for medals from the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments after the First Gulf War, as well as for the Greek War Medal, in 1992.
In reaching their decision the Committee had particular regard to the precedents for accepting a medal but not giving permission to wear, such as the Kuwait Liberation Medal which was accepted on a similar basis following the first Gulf War, and the precedents for making exceptions to the five-year rule, e.g. that veterans of the Second World War Arctic Convoys were granted permission to accept and wear the Russian 40th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War Medal. In the case of the PJM it was felt appropriate to acknowledge the generous gesture by the King and Government of Malaysia .
Australian and New Zealand veterans are allowed by the rules under which their honours and medals systems operate to accept and wear the medal. As a constitutional monarch, The Queen acts on the advice of the relevant administration in these matters. Commonwealth governments of which Her Majesty is Head of State may set different eligibility criteria for the award and acceptance of medals and honours. The rules in some Commonwealth countries are more similar to the guidance that pertains in the UK than the rules in operation in some others. These are matters for each individual government.
The UK system guards against the proliferation of foreign medals. Arguments for exceptions to our rules are considered with care to preserve the integrity of the honours system. It should be noted that the guidance applies to both campaign and commemorative medals. Although no official permission has been given for wear of the medal the wearing of awards by civilians is not policed.
Notwithstanding the fact that exceptions to the rules have been made at various points in history, and even though it agreed an exception in order to allow the PJM to be accepted, the HD Committee considered that the medal should not officially be worn primarily on the grounds of the five year rule, but also on the grounds of potential double-medalling. The PJM commemorates service between 1957 and 1966, during which time, apart from the period 1960-1962 (when it was considered no recognition was merited) military personnel serving in Malaysia who met the eligibility criteria, i.e. who were thought to merit recognition by the award of a medal, were awarded the British General Service Medal, with appropriate clasp. Army personnel who were seconded to Malayan Armed Forces between August 1957 and September 1963 were allowed to accept and wear The Federation of Malaya Active Service Medal (Pingat Khidmat Berbakti). (Special rules apply to personnel deployed on secondment.)
The contemporaneous Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals at the time of the Emergency, having considered the conditions of service in Malaya, recommended the award of the General Service Medal and appropriate clasps for particular periods where the necessary criteria for risk and rigour were fulfilled. There were periods when it was felt that the circumstances in the theatre of operations did not merit the award of a British medal. It would not be right to seek to undermine their decision at this point.
The status of the PJM, as a campaign or commemorative medal was not a material factor in the decision. The decision has been made as a gesture of gratitude to the King and Government of Malaysia for their gracious offer to present the PJM to those who served in Malaysia in the nine years immediately following Malaysian independence. The Malaysian High Commission has been kept informed of developments at all stages in the decision-making process, through regular meetings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
Each request to present a non-British award to British citizens is considered on its merits, in the light of the Rules governing the acceptance and wear of non-British awards, and according to any special circumstances at the time. The fact that a similar application has been approved in the past should not be taken as implying that permission will be granted for subsequent cases. In reaching their decision the HD Committee were fully aware of the precedents both for making exceptions and upholding the relevant rules.
The Rules on acceptance and wear of foreign awards were reviewed in parallel with the consideration of the PJM. The Committee confirmed that they should be retained. Allowing double medalling leads to proliferation of the medals UK citizens might wear. Only if awards are offered within five years of the events in question can accurate judgements be made as to the validity of the award.
THE DECISION IN DETAIL
The case was considered very carefully by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) before they made their recommendation to Her Majesty The Queen. The Committee was aware that some veterans were dissatisfied with the decision reached and agreed to review the original decision on this occasion.
All government departments involved in the case of the PJM recognise the strength of feeling regarding this issue. Some veterans have expressed their grievance repeatedly. The quantity of this correspondence has meant that it has not been possible to reply to every letter or email.
The arguments raised by complainants (where not covered above) are addressed in the notes below.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES
When any foreign state requests permission to present an award to a British citizen the request is considered in the light of the guidance on the acceptance and wear of foreign Orders, Decorations and Medals (the word foreign, for the purposes of the guidance, includes Commonwealth countries of which The Queen is not Head of State). The Rules are applied to Orders, Decorations and Medals, including campaign medals and commemorative medals, which are designed to be worn. Similar principles apply to proposals for new UK awards.
Any request to award a medal that is not in accordance with the criteria set out in the Rules will normally be refused. Exceptions, by their very nature, are unusual. In applying their discretion to the case the Committee were aware of the precedents for the grant of permission to accept and wear medals that did not meet the normal criteria. Exceptions are made on a case by case basis after consideration of any significant relevant factors: these might be political or diplomatic or other special features. The Committee did not believe that any of the examples of exceptions made previously was sufficiently similar to the current case to colour the current decision.
The Committee did consider that the relationship the UK enjoys with the government and people of Malaysia and the views of the veterans were sufficiently compelling to enable them to recommend an exception to the Rules, to enable the PJM to be presented and accepted. They did not believe that the arguments supported a recommendation that permission to wear should be granted. They took the view that an exception in this regard would have a far wider impact on the principles which underpin the UK honours system. Medals that do not meet the standard criteria should not be allowed to be worn on the same basis as those that do.
The Committee considered previous exceptions and did not find they matched the circumstances of the current case. Correspondents have, however, focussed on the existence of previous exceptions. They have particularly focussed on the decisions made in the following two cases.
(Naval) General Service Medal – Suez Canal Zone
The committee was able to distinguish the Suez campaign from other cases in which an award is sought years after the event because the Commanding Officer had put forward a proposal for a medal at the time but there was no record of its having been considered by those who were responsible for deciding on its merits, either at the time when the proposal was made or at a later stage in the campaign.
Accumulated Campaign Service Medal
This medal is intended as recognition of the additional pressures experienced by military personnel who are involved in a sequence of military campaigns in operational zones with a high degree of risk and rigour. It recognises the long-term commitment of frontline services and the cumulative impact of action in multifarious campaign theatres for which a single medal would have been awarded but no further medallic recognition issued for repeat tours.
THE RULES GOVERNING THE ACCEPTANCE AND WEAR OF FOREIGN AWARDS BY BRITISH CITIZENS
The validity of two particular elements of the guidance on acceptance and wear of foreign medals has been questioned. Other than the issue of the existence of exceptions, this questioning has focussed on the absence of documentation evidencing the origins of the conventions. The system has been in existence since at least 1886. There is documentary and hearsay evidence of the existence of the five-year rule (or an earlier two-year rule) dating back to at least 1855. The version of the guidance published in 1954 includes reference to it and it is reiterated in subsequent revisions and republications of the Rules. The Rules have been reviewed and revised on a number of occasions over the last one hundred and fifty years and, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, they are extant. They have been approved by successive Sovereigns and more recently by the HD committee on a number of occasions. Questions over their provenance, while of historic interest, have no direct bearing on the case. The PJM was considered under the Rules that were current in 2005. The Rules apply to all foreign awards that are designed to be worn.
The Rules apply to all foreign awards that are designed to be worn.
THE COMMONWEALTH
It has been claimed that the decision discriminates against UK citizens. The governments of the nations of the Commonwealth are autonomous and independent of each other. Each government applies its own rules and judgement to its own citizens. UK citizens cannot rely on the decisions of other Commonwealth states to claim particular treatment from the UK government. This applies to medals as it applies to different aspects of public policy. These differences do not constitute unfair discrimination, but the reasonable exercise of independent judgement by each country’s government in line with its own constitutional principles.
There are no laws relating to the wearing of awards by dual nationals. The convention is that they should be guided by the rules of the country of which they are a national, and in which they are residing. Some individuals have asked for greater clarity. If a veteran does wish to alter the way their medals are mounted for wear for international visits they might consider mounting their medals in such a way as to enable the PJM to be detached or attached as appropriate. It would normally be appropriate to follow the decision made by the country of main residence.
THE COMMITTEE ON THE GRANT OF HONOURS, DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
Veterans have questioned the integrity of members of the HD Committee and the Committee’s locus in offering advice to HM The Queen. Members of the Committee are crown and public servants who are required to maintain high standards of fairness, impartiality and integrity.
The forerunner of the Committee was established in the 1930s to provide independent and non-political advice to The Sovereign. The Sovereign is the fount of all honour in the United Kingdom and while the honours system operates through government it is not at the disposal of the Government of the day which cannot, by its own decision, alter, or abolish it. For the last century the Sovereign has called on His or Her Private Secretary, in consultation with civil servants, to give advice about the honours system. Prior to the establishment of the Committee, the Sovereign would have been asked to give permission for the setting up of a special enquiry each time a question of policy was raised. The non-Ministerial nature of the Committee does not shut out influence by Ministers. Private Secretaries, Permanent Secretaries and the Cabinet Secretary will be alert to the views of Ministers and their views will be taken into account by the Committee. But the recommendation goes to the Sovereign from the Chair of the Committee on behalf of the Committee.
Decisions made in connection with the acceptance and wear of foreign awards are not legislative decisions. It is a matter of practice rather than legislation.
MILITARY OPERATIONS IN MALAYSIA 1957 – 1966
The HD Committee of the time made a decision on the specific period of the conflict that properly merited recognition by the award of a medal. There were periods when no medal was deemed appropriate. There are no grounds for re-opening questions of the degree of risk and rigour experienced by UK forces during the conflict at this stage. The decision has stood for forty years. The presentation of another medal does not detract from the original decision. Risk and rigour were not of themselves factors in the consideration of the PJM.
Most of those who served in the Army, who formed the majority of UK personnel in the region, during the relevant period qualified for the GSM. Due to the 28-day qualifying period for the Royal Navy, the majority of those serving off the coast of Malaya (to 1960) did not qualify for the NGSM. The HD Committee of the day set the eligibility criteria very carefully.
ADMINISTRATION
The question of when approval was sought from the British authorities to present the PJM is one for the Malaysian authorities. The recommendations of the HD Committee with regard to accepting and wearing the PJM were not announced until 31 January 2006 because it was the first date available after the long process of considering the case and agreeing the Statement. This was not in any way connected with events in Australia, of which the Committee and the Secretariat were unaware.
The Malaysian request to present the PJM was considered in the same way as other requests from governments wishing to present foreign awards to British citizens. In some cases these procedures appear to have been misunderstood by those campaigning for permission to wear the medal. For example it is not true to say the FCO does not keep records by holders’ names of foreign awards. Records of permission to wear foreign medals are also maintained by the FCO.
It had been hoped that the review of the decision would have been concluded earlier and it is with sadness that we understand some veterans have died since the original decision was made. It was not possible to complete this review process any sooner due to the nature of the case. The PJM has been considered in great detail by the HD Committee, FCO, CO and MOD.
The Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, as the main government departments involved in the Pingat Jasa Malaysia case have provided a full statement on the Pingat Jasa Malaysia and have no further comments to make.
_________________ Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:07 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
lo_rre
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 41
|
Thanks John,
Crikey, five whole pages of absolute B@@locks all to create guilt in a lot of old vets that they will be discourteous to the Sovereign if they sport the PJM medal on remembrance day.
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:26 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) The PJM is not up to sctrach!
Whilst they come up with a number of reasons, the key issue for them is that in their view the PJM is not up to scratch. I quote " Medals that do not meet the standard criteria should not be allowed to be worn on the same basis as those that do." They've tried to bury that Imperial judgement, but without success.
Who the hell do they think they are speaking to - and about! That statement is a direct poke in the eye for the King and People of Malaysia and for British veterans. I suppose we can expect no more from a group of people who do not have the integrity to look beyond their own status.
Oh yes - there statement also calls into question the judgement of the Aussies and Kiwis who gracefull accepted the PJM for their citizens.
Anyway, they do not speak for me and so the fight goes on.
Thank you for all your support.
Barry
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:30 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) While we gather breath ...
Did you know that the British promised (and the Queen approved the rule) that if Malaysia offered a medal to a private citizen and it was approved for acceptance by the Queen, then the recipient would have automatic formal permission to wear the medal (i.e. with the Queen's approval)?
It seems that the HD Committee have conveniently forgotten to take that into account - indeed the PJM recommendation was deliberately concocted to preempt that earlier commitment.
Just a thought ... and one of many we shall be publishing as part of this ongoing fight.
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:53 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Paul Alders
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 931
|
For over 13 months they kept files out of my reach and it was only when my MP asked to see them did the FCO return them to the NA at Kew, I now have them and it shows what a right cock up these so called servants of the people have achived. they couldn't run a bath let alone a Government Department.
I have been chasing other documents which they do not want me to see, I shall continue to campaign.
The fight goes on, we are all on 24 hour stand by.
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:34 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Scottish Petitions Committee.
The Scottish Public Petitions Committee meets on 20th. March, 2007, and I just wonder what their reaction to being told by an unelected Civil Servant in the form of Denis Bren-gun, who does not even have the courtesy to sign his letter to them, that 'the Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, as the main government departments involved in the Pingat Jasa Malaysia case have provided a full statement on the Pingat Jasa Malaysia and HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS TO MAKE'. So there you are, bugger off and don't bother us Civil Serpents again.
Whew! I thought this fight was going to be over and that I would have to look for another one. Go on then, Bren-gun, you've made my day and shown to the world what an arrogant, self-opinionated numpty you are.
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:51 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Dave Woolmer
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Location: East Sussex
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Something seriously wrong here ?
If the British promised and HM approved the rule that "If Malaysia offered a medal, and it was accepted/approved by HM, etc. etc., then surely this whole abysmal debacle should NEVER have arisen. It appears to me that something is seriously and i mean SERIOUSLY wrong here. When was this rule made? I assume that HM knows of the latest decision, in which case my loyalty has now been severely dented. To the point where i will, with great sadness, now be discourteous to HM and wear my PJM as and when i see fit to so do. I know that many of you may disagree with me and i respect that. I shall continue to support this fight and i sincerely hope that everyone else will continue to do so. I feel so angry that the Malaysians have seen our "system" (for want of a better word) as it really is. I am bloody livid that the many who never came home have been so insulted by these SCUMBAGS. Keep up the fight, i'm with you!!!! In comradeship, Dave Woolmer
_________________ I like it here on MY planet. If you wish to visit, you are welcome,
but your sanity is not my responsibilty!
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:40 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Re: Something seriously wrong here ?
Dave Woolmer wrote:.............. I feel so angry that the Malaysians have seen our "system" (for want of a better word) as it really is. I am bloody livid that the many who never came home have been so insulted by these SCUMBAGS. Keep up the fight, i'm with you!!!! In comradeship, Dave Woolmer
Dave
That really sums it up, kick the Malaysians in the Christmas Crackers is bad enough but not to those 500+ colleagues that never made it back is downright 'discourteous' to them, I shall fight on come what may!
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:57 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Semengo13
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 442
Location: York
|
Just too bloody angry to comment at the moment having just got in and read the decision.
I will comment in due course but I say this.........this is far from over and count me in too Barry, Jock and co.
_________________ Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.
|
Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:44 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
willhastie
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 34
Location: melbourne
|
on anzac day i shall wear the pjm with pride,and remember able seaman dade who dident return home with us,men like him would have shown up the bloody suits for what they are.fight on ladies and gentlemen.
|
Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:14 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
ro5=6372
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 1763
|
HI WILL 'H',CURIOUS WHERE PHOTO WAS TAKEN,ITS A LONG TIME AGO,BUT IS THAT IN STORES BASIN IN SINGA'S DOCKYARD? CAN'T REALLY REMEMBER THE HIGH GROUND,BYT EVERYTHING ELSE SEEMS TO FIT.CHEERS,BY THE WAY MATEY I DO SOUND LAST POST AT DAWN ON APRIL 25,KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
|
Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:27 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
mel harris
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 10
|
With regards to rejection of the PJM, just what kind of people are we dealing with here ? They can't have an ounce of integrity in them. They have personally insulted every British Serviceman and Woman that served in Malaya and Borneo. I feel so angry. Who can we trust now, to get Justice ?
|
Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:44 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:Mel Harris wrote:
With regards to rejection of the PJM, just what kind of people are we dealing with here ? They can't have an ounce of integrity in them. They have personally insulted every British Serviceman and Woman that served in Malaya and Borneo
.....Right on Mel!.....and let's not forget, in addition to that they have also, yet again, given gratuitous insult to the Malaysian nation and the Agong of that state.
...What the 'suits' have said in their announcement is that this Malaysian Medal is not considered to be good enough to be worn by British Veterans....and on top of that they are saying that the standards of the OZ & NZ governments are inferior, since they elected to accept it 'unrestricted'.
There seems to be absolutely no limit to their arrogance!
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:58 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
|
The time now is Thu Apr 25, 2024 5:04 am | All times are GMT
|
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
|
|
|