First, I would like to underline that this fight is ongoing -and that what we have achieved is a direct result of everyone's support. I cannot imagine any campaign having such brillianrt men and women supporting it.
Here is a letter I have sent to a stalwart supporter (I have not identified him but will do so when he has given his permission):
BARRY FLEMING TEP
STOCKBRIDGE COTTAGE • INKPEN COMMON • INKPEN • HUNGERFORD • BERKS • RG17 9QP
TEL: 01488 668 100 • FAX: 01488 668 900
barry.fleming@fight4thePJM.org •
www.fight4thePJM.org
13th March 2007
Dear Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx,
Pingat Jasa Malaysia
HD Committee Statement
Following our telephone conversation today, I hasten to enclose herewith copies of the letter from the Cabinet Office to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament.
Having read the HD Committee’s explanation of events in the attached document, the reader could be forgiven for believing that all was well with the UK Honours System and that it was in safe hands, being protected from “disaffected” (the MoD’s term for us on their web site) medal chasers whose ill-informed and annoyingly persistent lobbying might adversely affect the integrity of the Imperial Honours System. But even a superficial scrutiny reveals more of their misleading disinformation. By any standards the document is a disappointing attempt, by civil servants who answer to no-one, to justify withholding from British veterans formal permission to wear the medal they have earned. In particular:
• The paper states that the PJM is not of sufficient standing to warrant it being worn by British citizens. This is a further snub to both Malaysia and British veterans. It also implies that Australia and New Zealand have less than satisfactory standards because they have accepted it.
• Reference to the 5-year Rule is knowingly misleading because the Committee must be aware that the rule has typically been referred to as “more or less of an arbitrary nature” because that is how the Cabinet Office themselves referred to it in the 1970’s, which is even before the 1992 Russia and 1995 Malta medals were agreed 50 years after the events they commemorate.
• The paper claims to be complete. It is not. It omits many fundamental issues that would, in my view, demolish their arguments. The most obvious omission is reference to the Malta medal – any such discussion would, of course, be very embarrassing to them bringing a question mark over their integrity if anyone were to ask "Why did you omit a proper comparison". Well, I do question their integrity because they have lied by omission in order to deny British veterans.
• They selectively extract issues that are not on all fours with the PJM so what they have included is misleading. Reference to Kuwaiti awards are references to a Medal of Honour and/or a Foreign Campaign Medal – the PJM is neither (the medals they refer to were administered by the MoD not the FCO!). But, again, why no mention of the Malta Medal which was a Foreign office medal?
• Half-truths – they imply we are wrong about Foreign Office records. We are not. The FCO Honours Secretary told me that they do not keep records ‘by name only by event’ although they do have some names of people who have been awarded Foreign decorations.
• The paper makes a callous and unnecessary reference to those men whom they knew were dying, and died, waiting to hear their decision. The implication is clear - that human life is less important than the HD Committee endeavouring to justify out-dated medallic semantics – and failing even after two years.
Then there is the matter of the London Gazette entry of 3rd May 1968 – a copy of which I enclose. Here The Queen decrees that if She approves a Foreign award to be accepted by a British private citizen, then She is also approving the medal’s wear. This is a fundamental issue that we unearthed only last week. I have no doubt that the HD Committee will say something like “Ah … but we didn’t mean you!”, but the existence of that decree makes the civil servant’s intransigent obfuscation appear less than ‘honourable’. The Gazette entry clearly states that British private citizens (i.e. not in the service of the Crown) have The Queen’s permission to wear their PJM yet I have not seen any mention of this from any Government Department or any civil servant therein. The implications are clear.
Oddly, although we have uncovered singularly important documents pointing to the London Gazette entry, I think the most devastating conclusion I have come to is that a handful of civil servants have again publicly snubbed the King and People of Malaysia in order to protect their outdated agenda. And not for the first time. In the mid-1960’s the HD Committee had caused so much embarrassment to the Malaysians that they undertook to fast-track Unrestricted recommendations whenever an award was received! In our case, and no doubt in others, they have reneged on that undertaking.
I have hundreds of pages of photocopies from the National Archives that prove that this appalling behaviour has characterised the last sixty years of Foreign Decorations policy (mis-)management. I have countless examples of official files notes and exchanges of letters between Government Departments that clearly and repeatedly state that the system is flawed and needs to be corrected and liberalised (liberated, more like!). We also need people managing the Honours System who have the intellect and integrity to carry out an open-minded review in an open manner, rather than one geared to defending their position within the claustrophobic, and slightly unsavoury, secrecy of those Whitehall corridors. This is not on a Wish List of civil service improvements. It is a fundamental requirement under the Civil Service Code that they look at matters with an open mind even when it may be embarrassing to them, and potentially damaging to them, to do so.
I have photocopies of FCO and/or Cabinet Office papers from the National Archives to substantiate the above statements.
In closing, I would like to point to the date on Brennan’s letter – it is the 12th March. That was Commonwealth Day! In the context of the Commonwealth PJM one wonders - should the British Honours System be in the hands of people with such insensitivity - people who display such a total disregard for others and the wider issues of critical importance in this, the real world, a global and very dangerous world. The one in which we have to live and the one which our servicemen and women die to protect. Just as so many of our friends did in Malaysia.
I shall keep you advised as to progress but would like to thank you, on behalf of all of us at “Fight For the PJM”, for your ongoing support which is an inspiration to all those fighting for the right to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia. We are determined to fight on, not blindly, but in the sure knowledge that our case is a just and deliverable one. And one day we shall win.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
Barry Fleming
Encs: Copy of Brennan letter and his enclosure to the Scottish Parliament
Copy London Gazette 3 May 1968
_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia