Annex D – Significant correspondence

D1 28 November 2000: Letter from Mr A to the Agency applying for the original scheme

‘I attach completed claim form for an ex-gratia payment. In doing so I would like to tender the following additional information in support of my claim.

‘(1) At 6 am one morning in March 1945, Japanese soldiers arrived in a lorry outside our home … Seremban, Negri Sembilan, Malaya (now known as Malaysia).

‘They ordered my father to have the family ready with bare essentials within one hour to be taken to the Railway Station in Seremban and from there to be transported by railway truck to an internment camp in Singapore – Sime Road Internment Camp.

‘(2) When we were subsequently taken to the Railway Station we were held in the truck for three to four hours before proceeding to Singapore.

‘(3) My memories of the internment camp include the fact that within a short time my body and arms and legs were covered with scabies which required a nurse to cut off the scabies each morning with a pair of scissors; following which a lotion was placed on the infected parts and I, together with a number of other children were required to stand naked in the sun for about half an hour each day outside the medical hut.

‘(4) Because of my age (8 years at the time) I was interned in the Women’s Section of the Camp. Boys over 12 years were in the Men’s Section.

‘(5) Our sleeping arrangement was on a grass mat placed over the sandy floor. I slept between my grandmother, Mrs L, aged 88, on one side and Mrs O (the elderly mother of Mr O, the first Chief Minister of Singapore) on the other side. Both these ladies took it upon themselves to look after me in the Camp (my mother had her hands full with my five sisters to look after).

‘(6) I witnessed a woman being kicked for not bowing to a Japanese Officer who was some many meters away from her.

‘(7) The men who had to work had to march each day through the Women’s Section to get to their various jobs. We could not communicate with each other and had to remain silent. However, from a signal from one of my four brothers who marched with the others, I would run between the marchers to grab a metal container filled with rice meant for me and my grandmother. In the evening when the men were returning back to their hut after a day’s work, I would repeat the earlier exercise and return the metal container to my brother. This was a very daring and risky procedure from which I was lucky to survive.

‘(8) My happiest memories were of our congregating with each other on Orchard Day every Sunday where the men and women were free to mingle and listen to concerts performed by the internees.

‘(9) The last memory was of catching the leaflets that were dropped from the sky into our camp by British forces. It was certainly a day to remember!

‘The above facts will be borne out by other members of my family lodging similar claims.

‘Please accept my above statements as fact in determining my claim. Your assistance in this matter will be much appreciated.’

D2 (Undated copy) June 2001: Letter from the Agency to Mr A rejecting his application to the original scheme

‘I am writing in response to your claim for the ex-gratia payment of £10,000.

‘The Government’s decision announced on 7 November 2000 by Dr Lewis Moonie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence) on behalf of the Government, was that the payments would be made to surviving members of British groups who had been held captive by the Japanese during the Second World War. Where such a person has died, any surviving spouse will be entitled instead.

‘Those who are entitled to receive the payment are former members of HM Armed Forces who were made prisoners of war, former members of the Merchant Navy who were captured and imprisoned and civilian internees who were British subjects, and were born in the United Kingdom or who had a parent or grandparent born in the United Kingdom. Certain other former military personnel in the colonial forces, the Indian army and the Burmese armed forces who received payments in the 1950s under the United Kingdom auspices will also be eligible.

‘I am sorry to send you a disappointing reply but it would appear from the information held you are not eligible to receive the ex-gratia payment’

D3 23 July 2001: Letter from Mrs E to the Agency expressing disgust at being refused the ex gratia payment

‘I am writing in disgust, at your rejection of my claim for the ex-gratia payment of £10,000.

‘I was a British civilian, living in Malaya, who was captured and interned by the Japanese during the war. I fulfilled your criteria for the payment – and although it was 55 years in the offing – I believed I was entitled to this reparation when your offer was made.

‘After more than a year of sending paperwork, checking family histories, and reliving painful moments I thought I had put behind me, it seems you have changed the rules on me.

‘I left Malaya in 1957 for Australia. I travelled on a British passport. I was then, and am now, a British subject. I was never domiciled in the UK – but I was part of the Empire on which you proudly proclaimed the sun never set.

‘I was a British subject during the Japanese invasion, you have evidence of this and I am still a British citizen. I gave details of my parentage, my grandparents and have given all details of the Japanese brutalities in the camps.

‘How can you now say that I am not British enough? I was British enough for the Japanese to perceive me and my family as a threat and intern us. I would like to be given reparation by the Japanese, I would like to see them pay for the atrocities they committed in war, but that isn’t going to happen. What instead was promised and managed to bring some light to our suffering, was the British offer of compensation.

‘It has now been reneged upon. Why? I do not believe it could be because I did not meet the criteria you specified when you first offered compensation. After sending information and more information, I believe you have changed the rules on me mid-game.

‘I am a UK national – my passport states British subject – I am eligible for residency, employment, and voting within the UK … how much more national can I be? I reside in Australia, which too has been British – we still have the same Queen.

‘It is a very cheap and un-British action of yours to refuse payment to the survivors of the Sime Road Internment Camp in Singapore. I strongly urge you to reconsider this decision and make reparation to the 200 or so British subjects interned here.

‘I look forward to your speedy response. Just as the Government wished to clear this matter expeditiously, I wish just as quickly to forget those perilous and cruel times. Although compensation is not a complete cure it goes some way towards that.’

D4 28 October 2005: Letter from the Agency to Mr A alerting him to the £500 apology payment

‘As I am sure your are aware, following criticisms in the report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on the Ex gratia Payment Scheme for former Far East Prisoners of War and civilian internees, the Minister for Veterans issued an apology in a written Statement on 13th July 2005. This apology was with respect to the distress caused to those who were led by the terms of the scheme’s initial announcement to expect that they might be eligible for an award, and in particular would have qualified but for the introduction of the birthlink criterion.

‘In his Statement, the Minister gave an undertaking to examine whether his apology should be given tangible expression, and he has recently announced that this will take the form of a £500 one-off payment. It appears from our records that you may meet the criteria set out in the Minister’s Statement and should receive a payment of £500. This is to compensate for the distress that the loss of expectation may have caused you, which is deeply regretted. As you know, at the time the Ex Gratia Payment Scheme was introduced there was a concern on all sides to announce it quickly given the age of many of the internees; as a result, the criteria were not fully developed and were only spelled out in full some months later.

‘We are required to confirm that you would meet the other criteria of the Scheme. We have sufficient information with respect to your claim to satisfy most of the scheme requirements but, before we can confirm that a payment is due, we need you to sign and date the attached declaration to confirm that there was no change to your position, and return it to the Veterans Agency in the pre-paid envelope provided.’

D5 17 November 2005: Letter from Mr A to the Agency accepting the apology payment

‘I am writing to thank you and to accept your offer of £500 in compensation for the distress caused to those of us who were led by the terms of the scheme’s initial announcement (re the Ex gratia Payment Scheme for former Far East Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees) to expect that we might be eligible for an award.

‘With due respect, I sincerely hope and trust that my acceptance of this offer will not prejudice my original and ongoing claim to the initial anticipated award of £10,000, subject to your review and consideration of the matter.’

D6 30 November 2005: Letter from MoD to Mr A – tangible apology payment

‘I am writing to you about the ex gratia payment scheme for former Far East civilian internees. You may be aware that I apologised publicly in July for the distress caused to people like yourself who were led by the announcement to expect that they might be eligible for an award. I renew that apology to you now.

‘In October, I announced that a one-off payment of £500 would be made to each of those individuals to whom an apology was due. This payment is in recognition of the distress that the loss of expectation may have caused you.

‘At the time the Ex Gratia Payment Scheme was introduced, all those involved in negotiating the scheme were concerned that it should be announced quickly, given the age of many of the former internees. As a result, the criteria were not completely developed and were only fully spelled out some months later.

‘Although we did it with good intentions, our announcement was rushed and turned out to be inadequate, and for that I am very sorry.

‘I hope this payment will provide a tangible expression of our sincere regret for the distress that may have been caused and I would like to apologise personally for the failings in the introduction of the scheme that gave rise to this.

‘You should receive this payment within the next 21 days.’

D7 March 2007: Letter from MoD to Mr A inviting him to apply for the injury to feelings scheme

‘Thank you for your letter of [date] to Derek Twigg, the Minister for Veterans, about the UK’s Ex-Gratia Payment Scheme for former Far East Prisoners of War and civilian internees. I have been asked to reply.

‘It is well known that the conditions under which many Prisoners of War and civilian internees were held by the Japanese were harsh and that their treatment was cruel. The British Government felt that the suffering of those with a close link to the UK had, for too long, been overlooked. That is why the Scheme was established in November 2000 to allow a payment of £10,000 as a tangible recognition of the extreme and unique circumstances of those held captive in the Far East during the Second World War. To date some 25,000 people have benefited from payments totalling £250 million under the Scheme.

‘It might be helpful if I explained some of the background to the principles of the Scheme. To qualify for a payment an individual must, in addition to meeting other eligibility criteria, have a close link with the UK. The requirement that claimants should demonstrate this close link has always been a central principle of the Scheme, although we accept that this was not clearly articulated when the Scheme was announced.

‘For a former civilian internee, the close link can be demonstrated by meeting residence-based criteria. It was also possible to qualify by having been born in the UK or having had a parent or grandparent that was (the ‘birthlink’ criterion). However a Court of Appeal judgment in October last year upheld an earlier finding that, while, the birthlink did not directly discriminate on the grounds of race, and that we had a legitimate aim in seeking to limit payments to those with a close link to the UK, the criterion involved unjustified indirect discrimination against those of non-UK national origins. This was not intentional – the introduction of the birthlink came about as the result of an entirely benign intention to provide an administratively manageable method to admit more claimants into the scheme, not less. Nevertheless, following the court’s decision the birthlink has been withdrawn.

‘We recognise that there remains a strong view among some that everyone who was British at the time they were interned should be paid. However, as an independent review of the Scheme has confirmed, it was never the Government’s intention that anyone who was British should qualify. Many of those who were British subjects in 1939 had, long before 2000, become members of independent countries which accepted legacy responsibilities for those people, including pension and compensation in respect of the War. Those who did not have a close link to this Country were not therefore regarded as reasonably falling under the Scheme introduced by the UK at that date.

‘In your letter you said that you expect to receive the ex-gratia payment. As I have indicated above, the award of an ex-gratia payment will depend on your meeting the Scheme’s criteria. For former civilian internees, these are:

• that you were British at the time you were interned
• that you were held captive in a specifically designated camp controlled by the Japanese
• that you can demonstrate a close link to the UK through meeting residence-based criteria. That is, that you lived in the UK before the War and returned afterwards or that you have lived in the UK for at least 20 years between 1 January 1945 and 7 November 2000 (when the Scheme was introduced).

‘If you believe that you may meet these criteria, you should contact the Veterans Agency, providing details as appropriate.

‘You also mentioned “restitution for discriminatory action”. Following the courts findings that the birthlink criterion involved unjustified indirect discrimination against those of non-UK national origins, we have confirmed that we are prepared to consider claims for compensation for injury to feelings resulting from discrimination on grounds of national origins, from any person whose claim was rejected on birthlink grounds and who was of non-UK national origins. Claimants who think that they are entitled to compensation in this way should write to the Veterans Agency setting out the basis on which they consider themselves to be a person of non-UK national origins or otherwise entitled to make a claim for indirect discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976.

‘I hope that this has been helpful in explaining the position.’

D8 1 July 2007: Mr A’s application to the injury to feelings scheme

‘Further to correspondence dated 1 March 2007 … and following the courts findings that the birthlink criterion involved unjustified indirect discrimination against those of non-UK national origins, I wish to be considered for claim for compensation for injury to feelings resulting from discrimination on grounds of national origins, under the Race Relations Act 1976.

‘You will have copies of all correspondence since November 2000. I was a British person of Jewish Faith interned by the Japanese in the British Colony of Singapore because I was British.

‘May I further point out to you the following:

(a) I was born a British Protected Subject in Seremban, Malaysia, as British

(b) I provided the Veterans Agency with a copy of my British Birth Certificate to prove the above

(c) I was singled out by the Japanese as British and taken by cattle truck from Seremban to Singapore

(d) I was held in a specially designated camp in the British Colony of Singapore – the Sime Road Internment Camp controlled by the Japanese

(e) I have provided the Veterans Agency with a copy of my passport which clearly states that I am a British Citizen of United Kingdom and Colonies

(f) The Japanese listing at the time of my internment shows me as British

‘The British Prime Minister the Hon Mr Tony Blair, promised to settle “A Debt of Honour” on the 7 November 2000 because the British Government had not looked after my rights as British. Tony Blair’s promise meant that at last the nightmares for being interned by the Japanese because I was British were going to be partly ended – the terrible experience can never be ended. After filling in many forms I am told that I am not British enough because I did not have a “Blood link to UK” although the Japanese in their open listing shows me as British.

‘The Veterans Agency acknowledges that they had handled the matter badly as they paid me UK 500 pounds. This is a fraction of the so-called “ex gratia” that I was promised. To be kicked in the teeth and discriminated against because I was not a Gentile, has given me many traumas – what right have you got to remove my birthright as British?

‘The Veterans Agency’s constant letters enquiring and probing, has made me relive the terrible times I had at the Sime Road Internment Camp. Each occasion has not just been mental anguish but torture – as in addition to everything, you have accused me of being a criminal for making a fraudulent claim. I was in a Japanese Internment Camp in Singapore as BRITISH and that is the truth.

‘My health has suffered and I have incurred doctors’ and other medical bills and the misery that you have made me undergo these past seven years is indescribable and impossible to adequately recompense. I know that you have been forced to pay other Jewish People in UK High Court, damages to try and ameliorate the pain and suffering that you have caused by your insensitivity, your incompetence, and your discrimination to avoid your responsibility – and you tried to remove my birthright as British.

‘May I reiterate that I am entitled to make a claim of indirect discrimination – “Injury to feeling” – under the Race Relations Act 1976.

‘Your response to this matter would be greatly appreciated and I look forward to have this claim settled as soon as possible.’

D9 30 August 2007: Letter from the Agency to Mr A rejecting claim for injury to feelings scheme AND saying £500 paid in error

‘I am writing in response to your letter dated 1 July 2007, addressed to Derek Twigg, regarding a possible claim for compensation for injury to feelings resulting from discrimination on grounds of national origins.

‘The basis on which Mrs Elias won her case and was awarded damages was not that she should have been considered “British enough” to qualify under the Scheme. The Court did not rule that, having been British enough to have been interned, she was British enough to have been paid, though some press reports of the case mistakenly stated that it did.

‘Mrs Elias won her case on the argument that the birthlink criteria unlawfully discriminated against her, a person of non-UK national origins, in favour of people of UK national origins because people of non-UK national origins were inevitably less able to comply with the UK birthplace requirements.

‘Therefore, the Ministry of Defence is prepared to consider claims for compensation for injury to feelings resulting from discrimination on national origins grounds from any person of non-UK, or non-exclusively UK, national origins whose claim was rejected as failing to meet the “birthlink”. To qualify for compensation, the claimant must also meet the other requirements of the Scheme (i.e. that they were a British subject at the time of internment and that they were held in a specially designated camp controlled by the Japanese).

‘Following receipt of your letter we have reviewed your case. It has been discovered that you do not satisfy the nationality criteria of the Scheme, i.e. you were not a British subject at the time of your internment. Consequently the £500 apology payment which you received in December 2005 was awarded to you in error. [My emphasis]

‘Although persons like yourself who were born in one of the nine British Protected States of Malaya were British Protected Persons they were not British Subjects. A person born in a protected state could be a British Subject deemed by birth if they had a parent born in the UK or Colonies.

‘As your parents were born in Iraq your birth in a protected state did not give you British Subject status.

‘For these reasons, an offer of compensation would not be appropriate.

‘I am sorry to send what I know will be a disappointing reply but I hope it explains the position.’

D10 14 September 2007: Letter from Mr A to the Agency following rejection

‘I refer to your letter dated 30 August 2007 in response to my letter addressed to Mr Derek Twigg with regard to claim for compensation for injury to feelings resulting from discrimination on grounds of national origins.

‘You state in your third paragraph that Mrs Elias won her case “on the argument that the birthlink criteria unlawfully discriminated against her, a person of non-UK national origins, in favour of people of UK national origins because people of non-UK national origins were inevitably less able to comply with the UK birthplace requirements”.

‘I am absolutely fuming at the way you have reviewed my case, because you have reviewed my case incorrectly. My older brothers and sisters who have lodged separate claims with you were born in Singapore, and have been considered as British subjects. Because I was born in Malaya, I was considered a British-protected person.

‘When the Japanese soldiers called at my home at 6.00 am to herd us into an open lorry for the ultimate purpose of sending us to an internment camp, they did not ask us to identify which of us were British Subjects and which of us were British Protected Persons. We were all thrown into “the melting pot” together because we were all considered British Subjects. I, as a British Protected Person suffered the same humiliation as my siblings who were considered British Subjects. We were taken by lorry to Seremban railway station and dumped into a cattle truck. We were made to stay in the truck for six hours without food or water before taking off at midday – destination – the Sime Road Internment Camp in Singapore. Where was the protection you were supposed to have given me? I was interned because I was a British subject supporting your cause in Malaya. I suffered humiliation, indignation, starvation and deprivation of natural rights on your behalf.

‘Please read the words of King George VI in his message after the war … “I send to my people and to the people under my protection in the Far East, who have suffered the horrors of Japanese oppression … ” Have a look also at what appears on the cover of my Australian Passport – “Australian Citizen and a British Subject”. At the time I was issued with my Passport I would not have been accepted as an Australian Citizen if I was not a British Subject, because at the time, Australia had the “White Policy”. In my dictionary, “British Subject” is also a “British Protected Person”. In the Australian Government’s dictionary, “British Protected Person” is also a “BRITISH SUBJECT”. You should study the history and FACTS before you play on words and whether you like it or not, MY FAMILY AND I WERE ALL CONSIDERED BRITISH SUBJECTS!

‘You have added insult to injury by stating that because of your interpretation of what constitutes a “British subject”, “the £500 apology payment received by me in December 2005 was awarded to me in error”. You have the bloody hide and audacity to state that especially when I have as much right as the others to receive a meagre compensation from you. If you were not all one-eyed Cyclops, then you should wake up to yourselves and open both your eyes, and read and understand and digest the information that is being given to you and information that has previously been given to you.

‘I have no doubt that your Government has been handsomely compensated by the Japanese Government after the war and it is about time you share some of this compensation with us – after all we have only been waiting for 62 years for you people to come to your senses. By this time the number of ex-internees has been greatly decimated by the normal ravages of life and the present claimants are now only a handful. Not only am I asking for proper compensation, I am demanding it. You British have always prided yourselves in being the prime upholders of law in the western world, and therefore, would like to be known as always “doing the right thing”. However, your handling and treatment of this whole issue is despicable and disgraceful, and bereft of common decency and justice. So why don’t you do the right thing now?

‘I AM HOPEFUL THAT JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL – BEFORE I GO TO MY GRAVE.’

D11 17 October 2007: Letter from the Agency to Mr A

‘I am writing in response to your letter dated 14 September 2007 addressed to Derek Twigg, Veterans Minister, about your claim for compensation for injury to feelings resulting from discrimination on grounds of national origins. I have been asked to reply on his behalf.

‘In my previous letter I explained that in order to qualify for the compensation claimants must also meet the other requirements of the scheme; that they were a British Subject at the time of internment and that they were held in a specially designated camp controlled by the Japanese.

‘For a person born in a British Protected State to be considered a British Subject deemed by birth they must have parent born in the UK or Colonies. For person born in a British Protected State or, elsewhere in the world, to be considered a British Subject by descent they must have a British Subject father.

‘Whilst it is appreciated that you suffered greatly during the period of your captivity, unfortunately your circumstances are such that you did not have British Subject Status during the second world war. Consequently you do not meet the nationality criteria of the Scheme.

‘I am afraid that I am unable to change the previous decision and confirm that an offer of compensation is not appropriate.’

D12 1 November 2007: Letter from Mr A to the MoD (also copied to the Agency and the Prime Minister)

‘CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION – (Mr A – Veterans Agency Number: 15912)

‘I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and my siblings, namely:

Mrs B

Mrs D

Mrs E

Mr F

‘I refer to the letter dated 17 October 2007 that I received from you signed on your behalf by Mrs R. A copy of this letter is attached. You have sent similar letters to my abovementioned siblings.

‘All 5 of us have been refused payment of a £4,000 Compensation that we believe we should be granted.

‘Mr Twigg, please allow me to put to you some pertinent questions :-

• Have you ever had Japanese soldiers come knocking on your door at 6 am telling your father that your family was to be interned in a Japanese camp somewhere in Singapore and that you all had one hour in which to get ready (taking with you only clothing and loose sheets) to be picked up?
• Have you ever been picked up in a lorry and taken to the railway station and deposited into a cattle truck and left there without food and water for six hours?
• Have you then been railroaded for seven hours to the internment camp at Singapore (Sime Road Internment Camp) and, upon arriving, found men and boys over 12 years old were to be segregated to another section of the camp and that all boys under 12 would remain in the women’s section?
• Have you ever lived in attap huts with very little protection from the weather and made to sleep on bare floors, where you had to use your blanket or loose sheets as the base to sleep on, with the prospect of scorpions, cockroaches and other creepy crawlies attacking you while you try to catch some sleep with tremendous discomfort due to the unlevelled ground?
• Have you ever eaten every day muck that we called “bubble and squeak” because that’s what happened when we heated food which some claimed to contain cockroaches and other ungodly things to save yourself from starvation?
• Have you ever eaten raw papayas which you risked your life to steal at night?
• Did you ever have to have your scabies over your body cut away with scissors every morning by a red cross nurse and then have the body areas swabbed with disinfectant and then made to stand naked in the sun for an hour for the disinfectant to take effect?
• Have you ever had to bow 20 to 50 times each day whenever any Japanese soldier passed you?
• Have you ever witnessed women being slapped and then rolled on the ground and kicked simply because they had their backs turned and didn’t notice a Japanese soldier passing by?
• Have you ever witnessed Japanese soldiers being hanged in public after the war for torture and other brutal treatments they inflicted on the internees?

‘Remember I was only 8 years old when these things were happening and they still play on my mind.

‘How many of the above questions have you answered with a “yes” and how many with a “no”?

‘We were all subjugated to the same events, whether we were “British Subjects” or “British Protected Persons”. There was no distinction between the two “subjects”.

‘Please let me point out another important fact to you. There were 11 of us in the family – one family – 6 were born in Singapore and were therefore known as “British Subjects”, the other 5, namely my siblings and myself were born in Malaysia (Malaya at the time) and were called “British Protected Persons”. If the other 6 were entitled to receive the £4,000 Compensation, how could we possibly be isolated from the others? We cannot understand that the £4,000 Compensation has been paid to hundreds of others, and yet me and some of my siblings are being refused this Compensation.

‘We were all interned in the Japanese Internment Camp together and we all returned together. Neither the Japanese nor the British told us that we were not supposed to be interned because we were not British Subjects. We all suffered the same indignities in support of Great Britain, yet me and 4 of my siblings feel that we are now being treated as outcasts.

‘Given the suffering and treatment that me and all of my siblings endured while under the Japanese during WWII, it is not only incomprehensible but almost obscene to make a distinction between those of us officially known as “British Subjects” versus those of us officially known as “British Protected Persons”.

‘The photocopy that I sent you of my Passport (copy attached) showed on the front cover “British Subject”. As far as I understand it, one’s passport is as official a document that one can have. When I came to Australia in 1957 the Government had a “White” Policy – if I wasn’t a British subject the Government wouldn’t have let me in to stay here.

‘We cannot understand why there is even an issue regarding the Compensation payment that me and my 4 siblings are contesting (the total sum of £20,000), considering the fact that the money would be drawn from acquired “Liquidated Japanese Assets”.

‘In the light of what I have told you in the preceding paragraphs, I beseech you to please reconsider your decision and arrive at a positive one to grant us each the £4,000, which will be a fitting end to this nightmare that we have been through. We have in fact waited for 62 years since the end of the war for recognition and compensation – isn’t that long enough?

‘We look forward to your positive response and sincerely hope that you will send out the last five offers of Compensation to us as soon as possible.’