The Pingat Jasa Malaysia

This letter is just one submission - a personal one, with all that that implies. This letter does not profess to contain a comprehensive list of arguments, definitely it does not - and many may not agree with my arguments. It does not purport to be the only way to present a submission, certainly it is not - I have seen more succinct submissions, and more learned submissions, and I have read many other telling arguments in favour of acceptance of this medal. I hope, though, that by placing this personal letter on this web site it will encourage others to write. Generally, it is better to keep letters short (what sort of example am I?), to avoid invective (that's not easy sometimes), and to be as factually correct as you can (anno domini permitting). One-liners in support of the medal will have an effect. Finally, thanks to those ex-208/28Bde personnel and others, both here and in Australia, who have taken the time and trouble to send me their views of this submission and their recollections of those days in Malaysia.

The letter has been sent to the eight members of the HD Committee - their contact details are set out elsewhere on this web site.

BARRY FLEMING TEP

Address

Tel: 0044 (0) xxxx xxx xxx    Fax:   0044 (0) xxxx xxx xxx Email:    xxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx

__________________________________________________________________________________

Sir Robin Janvrin, KCB KCVO
Private Secretary to The Sovereign
Buckingham Palace
London
SW1A 1AA

31 October 2005

Sir,

Committee on the Grants of Honours, Decorations and Medals

The Pingat Jasa Malaysia

I wish to submit to the Committee on the Grants of Honours, Decorations and Medals (the HD Committee) my reasons for contending that the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) should be recommended for acceptance.

I am writing to you as an ex-British soldier who served in Malaysia during the period of eligibility covered by the above medal which has been offered to eligible Commonwealth personnel by the Malaysian government, subject to recommendation by your Committee and acceptance by the Government.

I understand the basis for British Medals Policy and I support that policy.   It has for many years protected the integrity of awards accepted and worn by British citizens. But it is precisely in that context that I suggest that acceptance of the award of the PJM would not contradict that policy, and I contend that acceptance of the medal should be recommended by the HD committee so that it may be both accepted and worn.

Summary of Points in Support

This summary is not in priority order.   The points are discussed in greater detail in My Submission below:

  1. The PJM is a Unique Award - No other medal has been issued to cover the same service or operational objectives as defined for the PJM, including none by the British Government.

  2. Length of Period of Eligibility - The service to which the PJM refers lasted some ten years.   That service was necessarily ongoing and exceeded both the campaign scope and the eligibility term for the General Service Medal (GSM).

  3. Nature of Operations - Forces on the mainland were on a ‘warlike’ footing through to December 1966 - not only until 12 June 1965 after which date the GSM "Malay Peninsula" ceased to be awarded.

  4. Recognising Service for All - The scope and period of eligibility for the PJM will specifically enable those not eligible for the General Service Medal to have some recognition for their service in Malaysia.

  5. The Commonwealth Spirit - The PJM exemplifies what the Commonwealth Spirit is all about, and should be accepted on that basis.

  6. Effects of Rejection - If the British were to reject the medal it would be to spurn the King, Government and people of Malaysia, and those Commonwealth countries that have accepted the medal.

  7. The War on Terrorism - This medal is being offered by a predominantly Muslim country in acknowledgement of one long fight against terrorism.   We shall need their support in the future.

  8. Australian and New Zealand Acceptance - Australia has a stringent medals policy, in key areas similar to British policy, but was advised that the PJM could be accepted because it did not conflict with their policy.

  9. Mutual Regard and Support - The PJM has been accepted by Australia and New Zealand.   It is not justifiable to deny British citizens the right to the same level of acknowledgement for the same service to a Commonwealth country.

  10. The Gurkha Contribution - The Gurkhas made a distinguished contribution to the service that the PJM seeks to recognise.   In recommending acceptance of the PJM, you will enable these proud and loyal soldiers to receive the acknowledgement they so richly deserve.

  11. Double-Medalling - Does not apply.   The scope of the PJM covers operations and timescales outside the rules for the General Service Medal with clasps “Malaya”, “Malay Peninsula”, and “Borneo”.

  12. Retrospective Awards - I contend that your Committee should not judge this to be a retrospective and belated award on the grounds that you cannot put yourselves in the place of a Committee which made an original decision and which would have been able to take account of the views of the Government and of other interested parties at the time of the decision. The decision to offer the award is of recent origin (2004) and those involved in the decision-making process, and other interested parties, are accessible today.

  13. Reconsideration of Awards for Events more than Five Years Ago - I contend that acceptance of the PJM does not conflict with British Medals Policy in this respect, i.e. on the basis that your Committee “will not reconsider cases that took place more than five years ago”. Publicly announced in 2004, this medal has not been considered before.

  14. GSM with clasp “Suez Canal Zone” - I contend that the basis on which this medal was recommended does not invalidate a recommendation for the PJM - in fact I contend that it reinforces the case for the PJM on the grounds that there is no doubt at all that this is the first opportunity for the PJM award to be considered.

  15. A Medal not a Keepsake - The Kuwait Liberation Medal and the Saudi Arabian version thereof can only be accepted as 'keepsakes' by British citizens (with some exceptions in the latter case) - and I understand why. I contend that the PJM is offered on fundamentally different grounds and should be recommended for both acceptance and wearing.

  16. Political Influences - It would be invidious to reject an offer of an award from a Commonwealth country having accepted the "40th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War Medal" on the basis of the 'official' explanation given to justify acceptance, namely the improvement in relations between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation.

  17. Supporting Malaysia from External Threat - Malaysia allowed SEATO forces to be based in their country only if it was also agreed that those same forces would be used to support Malaysia against external threats.   This they did through to the end of 1966 with consummate success, giving Britain and others a base from which to deter threats against Laos and Thailand.   Having agreed and actively implemented that arrangement in order to achieve our own objectives, it would be difficult to understand how any acknowledgement by Malaysia of that service could be rejected.

My Relevant Military Service

 I present the following brief summary of my relevant military service in support of my submission only because it demonstrates not only that my submission is based upon my personal experience in the region over part of the period covered by the PJM but also because it reflects my detailed knowledge of many aspects of the British and other Commonwealth forces' service and operations that the PJM seeks to acknowledge.

  1. Relevant Postings - I served in the Intelligence Corps in Malaysia between 1965 and 1968 and was posted to Headquarters 28 Commonwealth Infantry Brigade and to a Section of 9 Security Company, both based in Malaysia.   My duties involved both Operational Intelligence and Security duties.

  2. Operational Intelligence - Our unit collected, collated, and disseminated intelligence and gave Intelligence briefings regarding operations in Borneo, Malaysia, and Thailand (the latter as part of a SEATO role).   We provided interrogation, air photographic intelligence, and other resources. In addition to our direct involvement, we assisted in the training of forces for operations in all three countries.

  3. Security - Duties covered both Military Security and Civil Security:

These duties continued through to December 1966 and, in certain circumstances, beyond that date which marks the end of the term of eligibility for the PJM.

My Submission

I contend that the PJM should be recommended for acceptance and I make the following points in support of that contention (again, in no priority order):

  1. The PJM is a Unique Award - The medal is being offered by the King and Government of Malaysia in acknowledgement of the role of Commonwealth citizens in the fight to protect that country’s freedom over a protracted period.   No other medal has been issued to cover the same service or operational objectives as those defined for the PJM.

  2. Length of Period of Eligibility - The service to which the PJM refers lasted some ten years.   That service was necessarily ongoing and exceeded the eligibility term for the General Service Medal (GSM).   Most British service personnel served in the region for two and a half to three years - many returned on a second tour.   My clear recollection is that the service to which the PJM refers, and the operations that were involved, did not finish on the 12th June 1965 when eligibility for the General Service Medal clasp “Malay Peninsula” for forces on the mainland ended, nor on the 11th August 1966 when eligibility for the General Service Medal clasp “Borneo” ended.   Operations on the mainland continued for over a year after June 1965.   I endorse the Malaysian Government’s view that there was a ‘cooling off’ period through to December 1966 during which time activity subsided.

  3. Nature of Operations - I submit that the service to which the PJM refers, including the Internal Security operations, were necessarily ongoing - and were successful not only because of the professionalism of the forces involved, but also because of the subtle way the operations were sensitively carried out.   It was critical not to alienate the Malaysian people by employing, for example, aggressive short term tactics.   The relatively ‘quiet’ and low-key nature of the operations was part of the deliberate methodology to achieve success, and the fact that there were few incidents that attracted headlines and even fewer casualties on all sides should not be used as a reason to consider those operations as not deserving of recognition by way of a medal.   Patrols continued, observation posts manned, and Operating Procedures provided for live ammunition to be issued and used.   Forces on the mainland were necessarily on a ‘warlike’ footing through to December 1966.

  4. Recognising Service for All - The scope and period of eligibility for the PJM will specifically enable those not eligible for other medals to have some recognition for their service in Malaysia.   I refer in particular, but not exclusively, to those who served on the peninsular after June 1965 who are not eligible for the GSM with clasp “Malay Peninsula”.

  5. The Commonwealth Spirit - The PJM is an award from one Commonwealth country to other Commonwealth countries and exemplifies what the Commonwealth Spirit is all about.   The medal should be accepted on that basis.   Rejection of the medal would be to make a statement that Britain considers itself apart from, and aloof from, the rest of the Commonwealth and would surely not encourage relationships with a Commonwealth country that has made the offer in good faith and after appropriate internal consultation.

  6. Effects of Rejection - The PJM has been accepted by other Commonwealth countries with medal policies essentially as stringent as British policy.   If the British were to reject the medal it would be to spurn the King, Government and people of Malaysia, and those Commonwealth countries that have accepted the medal.

  7. The War on Terrorism - This medal is being offered by a predominantly Muslim country in acknowledgement of one long fight against terrorism - one that succeeded.   I contend that, particularly in the current climate, our country should embrace their acknowledgement in the knowledge that we shall need their support in the future (and certainly for longer than the period covered by the PJM) in our, and their, war on terror.

  8. Australian and New Zealand Acceptance - Whilst the acceptance by The Queen, as recommended by the Commonwealth Ministers of Australia and New Zealand, does not create a precedent for Britain, the background to acceptance by those countries is worthy of note.   If you refer to proceedings in the Australian Senate (e.g. 17th June 1997) and House of Representatives (e.g. 24th November 1997) you will see a clear demonstration of Australia’s determination to rigorously apply a medals policies in key areas similar to those of the UK.   In the example referred to, and despite intense lobbying, the Australian Government would not accept an instance of double-medalling in respect of its own Australian Service Medal.   However, they were subsequently advised that the PJM could be accepted on the basis that it did not conflict with its strict medals policy.   I contend that the same recommendation can be made by your Committee.

  9. Mutual Regard and Support - The PJM has been accepted by Australia and New Zealand in the circumstances referred to elsewhere in this submission.   As a result, their eligible personnel are able to wear the medal.   Those same countries, as so often in the past and always at great cost, continue to support this country and to fight for freedom beside British citizens.   It is not justifiable to deny the British the right to the same level of acknowledgement or to deny them the right to wear the same medal for the same service to a Commonwealth country.

  10. The Gurkha Contribution - The Gurkhas made a distinguished contribution to the service that the PJM seeks to recognise.   Through no fault of their own they are under siege both at home and abroad.   Many will say, and as a contributor to the Gurkha Welfare Trust I include myself, that they and their families do not yet receive adequate recognition by way of pensions for their valiant service over so many years.  I can remember the reaction both here and in the Falklands when it was announced that the Gurkhas were to be deployed there.   Their impact, value, and loyalty to the UK and the Commonwealth cannot be overstated.   They continue their loyal service even today.   In recommending acceptance of the PJM, you will enable these proud and loyal soldiers to receive the acknowledgement they so richly deserve.

  11. Double-Medalling - Double-medalling is a reason given for not recommending an award and the Arctic Convoy Emblem is an example of the application of this policy (in the context that double-medalling would have resulted because the operations referred to were specifically catered for in the award of the Atlantic Star).   But I would contend that this policy does not apply in the case of the PJM.   The scope of the PJM covers both service and timescales outside the eligibility rules for the General Service Medal with clasps “Malaya”, “Malay Peninsula”, and “Borneo” and therefore this is not a case of double-medalling.

  12. Retrospective Awards - I contend that your Committee should not judge this to be a retrospective and belated award.   The reason given for rejecting awards on this basis is that your Committee “cannot put itself in the place of the Committee which made the original decision and which would have been able to take account of the views of the Government and of other interested parties at the time of the decision” (source:   The Veterans Agency).   I accept that reasoning.   But in the case of the PJM and its sponsors and its scope of eligibility, no earlier Committee or Government or other interested party has been involved in making, or not making, a decision.   The Government of Malaysia announced the award in 2004 based upon their very recent deliberations (and you have ready access to their representatives if you have questions to ask about those deliberations), and only after discussion with those involved in their struggle between 1957 and 1966.   The Committee would be making a recommendation on a recent case, not a belated one, and it has access to all the parties involved in making the offer and to other interested parties.

  13. Reconsideration of Awards for Events more than Five Years Ago - I understand that your Committee “will not reconsider cases that took place more than five years ago”.   This case has not been considered before and so, by definition, cannot be subject to ‘reconsideration’ and, in any event, the origins of the decision to make the award are recent.   For that reason, and for similar reasons to those stated in paragraph 12. above, it is my contention that acceptance of the PJM does not conflict with British Medal Policy in this respect.

  14. GSM with clasp “Suez Canal Zone” - I contend that the basis on which this medal was recommended (i.e. that the award, being made over 50 years after the event, should be seen as a one-off in the context of the retrospective and belated awards policy) does not invalidate a recommendation for the PJM - in fact I contend that it reinforces the case for accepting the PJM.   In the Suez Canal Zone case, there was doubt as to whether proper consideration had been given at the time (in the 1950s) to an award being made.   The absence of any certainty on that point enabled your Committee to recommend acceptance without conflicting with policy.   In the case of the PJM we can be absolutely certain that no previous consideration has been given to the medal in the context of its scope.   Neither of the two GSMs was awarded in direct relation to the specific service that the PJM seeks to acknowledge.

  15. A Medal not a Keepsake - The Kuwait Liberation Medal and the Saudi Arabian version thereof can only be accepted as 'keepsakes' by British citizens (with some exceptions in the latter case) - and I understand why. Those medals were offered by foreign governments in relation to a campaign specified as being in respect of the 'Liberation' of a foreign country. In the case of the Saudi medal, the award was offered by the government of a foreign country which was not the foreign country in which 'Liberation' operations were carried out. Furthermore, that specific campaign service has been recognised in the award of the Gulf Medal 1990–91, in the form of the medal only, or with one of the two clasps. I contend that the PJM is being offered on fundamentally different grounds. It is offered by a Commonwealth country, for service within its territory, to Commonwealth personnel, for service that does not relate to 'campaign' service per se but which is of greater scope, and for service over a period of time not covered by any other award.

  16. Political Influences - The "40th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War Medal" (relating to WW2 in the then USSR) was originally refused in the mid-1980s but, after continued lobbying, permission was granted in 1994 for the medal to be received and worn.   I understand the point that it was accepted as an ‘anniversary’ and not a ‘campaign’ medal.   Nevertheless, this is a clear indication of the nature of political considerations that are taken into account - the award being accepted "in the light of changed circumstances in Russia since the medal was first issued, the improvement in relations between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation …” (source:   The Veterans Agency).   In the context of that award and the 'official' explanation given for it being accepted, it would be invidious to reject an offer from a Commonwealth country, particularly as the PJM is in respect of the acknowledgement of Commonwealth support the success of which maintained stability not only in Malaysia but also in the region generally.

  17. Supporting Malaysia - Malaysia was not part of SEATO in the 1960s and, when we needed to have forces and bases in that country in furtherance of a SEATO role (Laos and Thailand’s security in the 1960s was of paramount importance, particularly in the context of the Vietnam situation at that time), we agreed to Malaysia’s terms for the presence of certain forces in their country, i.e. the forces were to be available and were to be used to protect Malaysia from threats against their country. This they did through to the end of 1966 with consummate success, giving Britain and others a base from which to deter threats against Laos and Thailand.   Having agreed and actively implemented that arrangement in order to achieve our own objectives, it would be difficult to understand how any acknowledgement by Malaysia of that service could be rejected.

Conclusions

In this letter I have endeavoured to express why I believe that the Pingat Jasa Malaysia should be recommended for acceptance, setting out issues that I would ask your Committee to take into account when considering the matter.

In accepting the award, Britain would be recognising the desire of a Commonwealth nation to acknowledge the support that Britain and its Commonwealth allies gave to it over a protracted period of time.  The success that was achieved by those who served in Malaya and Borneo laid the foundations for Malaysia to achieve the regional stability and economic prosperity it enjoys today - and we benefit directly both in terms of what we get out of the emerging global economy and in terms of the security of the region.

During these current difficult and dangerous times, what better opportunity do we have to demonstrate to the world that it really is possible for nations to work together to achieve success in the fight against terror, however long that may take.

I remain, Sir,
Yours faithfully,

Barry Fleming