The Campaign for Permission to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
LATEST NEWS!
Our Legal Eagle's View is that You Can Wear it with Honour!
After the HD Committee fanned its nose at our MPs and said it would not amend the PJM recommendation as demanded by MPs in Parliament, we decided that we should question the whole legal and practical basis of what has been going on. Something was not right. This is not how democracy should work. The one thing that these civil servants must do is to keep an open mind, be ready to amend decisions, and to listen to the people and to Parliament. Nothing must ever be forever – that is the long-established rule in a country like ours without a written constitution.
In the case of the PJM, however, the civil servants have decided that they are above Parliament scrutiny. We thought we should test that by way of an independent legal opinion. And so we have sought, and have obtained, a legal opinion by a leading lawyer who specialises in Military Law and related matters.
We asked a question which can be summarised as follows. What is the position regarding the apparent attempt by civil servants to restrict the rights of British citizens (to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia which they have been granted permission to receive by the Queen) by their ‘proposal’ that was put to the Honours and Decorations Committee and eventually appeared in a Ministerial Statement in January 2006 to the effect that the PJM could be received but formal permission to wear it would be withheld?
That recommendation is a clear stigma on the medal and on British civilians entitled to receive it – as well as on Malaysia. As MPs have said in Parliament, the recommendation has brought shame on our country. That stigma, that shame, must be removed.
This legal opinion was our first formal step in that direction.
Summary of Key Points from the Opinion
We have always wanted to know if eligible holders of the PJM could wear their medal irrespective of what the civil servants are trying to tell the world. The opinion says:
|
[It is important to note that this part of the advice is unequivocal] Holders of the PJM are entitled to wear it by virtue of the 3 May 1968 notice. Most significantly it the Ministerial Statement ignores the London Gazette Notice of 3 May 1968 which states that the Queen has, in exercise of the Prerogative, approved that Orders, Decorations and Medals conferred with her permission on UK citizens who are not Crown servants by Commonwealth or foreign states may in all cases be worn by the recipients without restriction. Consent having been granted to applications for the PJM on 31 Jan 06, any holder who is not a military or civil servant, is thus entitled to wear it. No formal consent for civilians to wear was necessary since that consent was granted in 1968. |
We have always wanted to know if the civil servants are misleading our MPs by suggesting that because the PJM decision is subject to the Royal Prerogative our directly elected representatives in the Commons, i.e. our MPs, cannot be involved and can have no influence. The opinion says:
|
Parliament has the right to influence the Prerogative - Honours in the UK are still a matter for the Royal Prerogative with the sovereign in UK being advised by the Parliamentary Honours & Decorations Committee. It is, however, only advice and no one is answerable in law to matters within the Prerogative. [Despite the protestations of the civil servants – our words] Parliament may encroach on the Prerogative. |
We have always wanted to know if the civil servants have any right to dictate what a British civilian can or cannot do in respect of wearing medals to which they are entitled. The opinion says:
|
Neither the FCO nor the MOD may prevent a civilian from wearing anything he wants save with intent to deceive. It is probably implicit in the 31 Jan 06 Statement that the Trade Minister knew this and hence his declining to grant 'formal' permission to wear but shrinking from stating that it could not be worn. |
We have always wanted to know if the civil servants are within the law when refusing to answer our legitimate questions about matters that affect our rights. The author of the opinion said:
|
As you say there may be a legal issue if you are denied FOI access. It will probably be claimed that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply to matters within the Prerogative but you are in fact seeking information as to whether a Prerogative decision was tampered with. Your assessment of tampering is in my view absolutely correct but it is quaint that nobody seems to have been aware of the 1968 Prerogative decision to permit all non-Crown servants to wear all decorations they had been authorised to accept. |
We have always wanted to know if the civil servants are legally entitled to deny us the right to wear the PJM and, if not, the extent to which our civil liberties have been affected and where we could have our case heard. The opinion says:
|
The FCO is not entitled to prescribe a so called rule which restricts the liberty of a UK civilian without legislation. Even if parliament legislated, it could be subject to review as an unlawful restriction on liberty under EEC Act 1972 in the case of EU member states and of the Human Rights Act 1998. |
In summary, it is our view that unless the HD Committee and those who provide them with their ‘proposals’ can successfully rebut the above opinion (to date they have refused to have their case reviewed independently or by Parliamentary scrutiny), then it is clear that eligible holders of the PJM are fully entitled to wear the PJM on formal occasions and have the Queen’s approval to do so by virtue of her 1968 Notice.
THE LONDON GAZETTE, 3rd MAY 1968
When the HD Committee placed their recommendations for approval before the Queen, we are told that they asked Her to approve only acceptance of the PJM...they did not ask Her to approve the right for wear. As a result, in Her role as a constitutional monarch, Her Majesty approved the recommended acceptance of the PJM. Critically, in this PJM approval She did not rescind any of Her previous decisions. In that context, an earlier, and extant, London Gazette Notice becomes very relevant indeed!
After more than a year's work including much researching of files, some of which became inexplicably withheld from us for nearly a year (they had been 'borrowed' from the National Archives by the FCO), we uncovered this London Gazette notice.
The purpose of this 1968 Notice was to cut down on administration and bureaucracy within an overloaded and confused Honours system. Civil servants today wish to put the clock back to before that Notice so that they can continue their stranglehold on the System. To achieve that they claim this Notice does not apply to PJMers ... only their own discredited decree must apply. We do not agree with them because the 1968 papers are clear - if you are a private citizen when a medal is conferred on you with The Queen's permission, then you have Her permission to wear it.
The text of this notice is clear, concise and incontrovertible - I urge you to read it carefully and ask yourself...Am I eligible under this notice? If the answer to that question is 'Yes' then you can wear your PJM with honour on formal occasions.
If you have any lingering doubts about your eligibility under the London Gazette Notice as a private citizen when the PJM was conferred, they will be eliminated by the information posted on the official web site of the Malaysian High Commission. It confirms that the PJM was conferred in 2006 and if you were not in Crown Service at that time and therefore eligible, then the London Gazette Notice of May 1968 gives you The Queen's permission to wear the Pingat Jasas Malaysia.
Furthermore, in July 2008 a Government Minister told a PJMer that he was delighted to see the PJM being worn on an official occasion, saying "The Queen's Warrant [i.e. the London Gazette Notice] gives permission, and it had not been rescinded."
Now, where does that leave "the faceless wonders who state that we cannot wear the medal" (a quote attributed to the same Government Minister)?
Those of us in the Fight4the PJM Team who previously felt unable to wear their PJM, will now do so in the light of the Gazette Notice. We remain loyal to The Queen and will abide by her known decrees. Until the Gazette Notice is rescinded or amended by Her we shall wear our PJMs with honour.
And so our job is done.
Or is it? ...
The Future
... as for the future, we intend to continue the fight until all recipients can wear their PJM - not just those eligible under the London Gazette notice.
Furthermore, we shall continue to campaign until permission to wear the PJM is publicly proclaimed and the stigma placed on our medal has been removed forever.
(Having read this important and recently updated notice, please click here to enter the site)
