RSF concerned about new media minister appointment

10 May 2010

SOURCE: Reporters Without Borders

On 5 May 2010, Reporters Without Borders welcomed President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s decision to accept Mervyn Silva’s resignation as deputy media minister after just 13 days in the position. Called an “arsonist” by the press freedom organisation after his appointment, Silva has been named deputy highways minister instead.

Keheliya Rambukwella, a former government spokesman on defence issues, was meanwhile named media minister.

“Rambukwella’s appointment as media minister raises some concerns,” Reporters Without Borders said. “During the offensive against the Tamil Tiger rebels, he waged an often very violent verbal war against journalists, human rights activists and foreign governments that criticised the way civilians were being treated.”

The press freedom organisation added: “We urge Rambukwella to give priority to the case of cartoonist and political reporter Prageeth Eknaligoda, who has been missing for more than 100 days. We also urge the new minister to examine the case of Ruwan Weerakoon, an opposition journalist who has been held since mid-March.”

The new minister should also try to get the security forces to identify those responsible for the murders of Sri Lankan journalists. Referring to leading journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge’s murder, Rambukwella said in February 2009 that he and the president were aware of the identity of the murderers and would make the facts known on 15 February. No names were released and there has been no significant progress in the investigation since then.

A journalist told Reporters Without Borders that Rambukwella threatened him during a telephone call after a report about a military offensive in the Muttur region at the end of 2005. “He did not like the fact that I had interviewed a Tamil Tiger representative,” the journalist said. “A military intelligence officer came to my home a few days later and then, a few months later, I was kidnapped in Colombo.”

Rambukwella said in a June 2009 interview that the government had proof that journalists were being paid by the Tamil Tiger rebels to support their activities.

Another Colombo-based journalist said Rambukwella was known for readily giving comments to the press.

Coinciding with Rambukwella’s appointment, Sandun Jayasekera, a journalist with the Colombo-based “Daily Mirror” was hit by soldiers and was slightly injured on 5 May during a visit by the president to a hospital in the capital.

The diminished credibility of justice institutions

An all powerful political constellation carries very obvious dangers
By Kishali Pinto Jayawardene

Legitimate fears arise this week as to whether the post elections policies of this government will lead to the further undermining of Rule of Law institutions in the months ahead.

Overarching political control

The deliberately designed retention of powers in the hands of the Executive Presidency to an extent hitherto never seen, (even with the most manipulative of past Executive Presidents such as JR Jayawardene), accompanied by an equally deliberate redistribution of ministerial and political authority among the various members of the Presidential family is exceedingly worrisome in and by itself. Such an all powerful political constellation carries very obvious dangers, particularly against the backdrop of an opposition which remains pitifully inchoate, ineffective and disunited.

This overarching control of the country’s social, economic and development sectors by one political family is further aggravated by gravely insidious policy changes that threaten even the limited extent of democratic space that we possess in Sri Lanka today.

The Office of the Attorney General to come under the President

One such immediately troubling development concerns the bringing of the Department of the Attorney General under the direct control of the Executive Presidency. In the gazetted notification relating to the assignment of subjects and functions to the relevant ministries, (Gazette no 1651/20-April 30th 2010), the Department of the Attorney General is omitted from the list of departments under the Ministry of Justice. Instead, this Department has been brought under the purview of President Mahinda Rajapakse in terms of Article 44(2) of the Constitution which is, inter alia, to the effect that the President may assign to himself any subject or function and shall remain in charge of any subject or function not assigned to any Minister.

This is an extraordinary development indeed and goes to the very heart of Sri Lanka’s legitimacy as a democratic system. For years, the efforts of legal activists and commentators in this country had been directed towards drawing attention to freeing the Department of the Attorney General from indirect political control. There were good reasons as to why these calls were made.

Political control of prosecutions

Increased political control of prosecutions had led to the Department of the Attorney General loosing much of its lustre through the years. The extent to which state prosecutors had been politically driven in several cases to refrain from going ahead with the prosecutions or to embark on arbitrary prosecutions has been well documented and analysed. Instances in the first category for example, include, most famously, the Richard de Zoysa prosecution where the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka, (which is now most unremarkably silent on equally grave challenges as then to the Rule of Law), virtually accused the then Attorney General of acting according to the dictates of the United National Party government in power. Other cases of politically tainted prosecutions are well known in this regard, numbering among them failure to hold those accountable for the massacre of prisoners at the Welikada prisons.

However, despite the political pressures brought on the Attorney General in particularly controversial cases such as the above, there remained honourable state law officers who persevered to conform to time honoured traditions of serving as the State’s chief law officer rather than to act as a political lackey of any particular government in power.

This concept of an independent state law officer was not a magical creation. Instead, this rationale evolved through time, commencing from the moving out of the Attorney General from the inner cabinet as a result of recommendations made in 1928 by a special commission on the Constitution and then becoming firmly entrenched through the Soulbury Reforms.

Though there were challenges posed to this concept, most notably in 1972, its vital importance was recognized in later constitutional changes in 1978. In more recent and further acknowledgement thereof, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution stipulated that the Attorney General must be appointed subject to approval by the Constitutional Council. Ancillary legislation laid down strict removal procedures in respect of the Attorney General equal to the removal of an appellate court judge.

Serious problems with legal accountability

Yet all these painfully evolved constitutional protections have been rendered nugatory at one stroke by this government in bringing the Department of the Attorney General under the direct control of the Executive President.

Given Sri Lanka’s serious crisis of credibility in regard to legal accountability for human rights abuses, the creation of the Office of an Independent Prosecutor with funds drawn from the Consolidated Fund and not coming under any ministry, was in fact suggested by the 1994 Commissions of Inquiry into Enforced Disappearances.

Yet we have the exact opposite today. What does this signify for the public acceptance of the Department, even at the diminished level at which this acceptance exists today? Can we expect even the theoretical notion of the office of an independent Attorney General to survive? From indirect political control, do we now have to contend with direct political control, from the filing of indictments to the withdrawing of cases? These are relevant questions indeed for us to ponder over.

Insidious undermining of the Rule of Law

These policy changes are wrought quite insidiously. At one point, we are expected to be grateful for the relaxation of certain aspects of emergency laws and to be glad that journalist JS Tissainayagam has been pardoned. Yet questions remain as to why the military continues to be afforded police powers under remaining emergency law and why indeed a journalist had to be indicted in the first place, primarily for writings that surely come within the scope of freedom of expression however disagreeable they may have been to some?

And while we hear of constitutional reforms on the one hand, even existing justice institutions are undermined on the other hand. Without securing the basic independence of justice and legal institutions, is there any point in establishing yet another Commission, this time (apparently) on Justice and Reconciliation? We have seen very well the farcical nature of such Commissions before, designed purely as a palliative to international pressure rather than to benefit the people.

These are fundamentally conflicting signals that (unfortunately) appear to speak to a most profound insincerity of this administration in terms of its commitment to the Rule of Law

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/100509/Columns/focus.html

Attorney-General and Legal Draftsman depts directly under President now

by Namini Wijedasa

A gazette notification was issued on April 20 assigning subjects and functions to the new ministers. It also set out the departments, public corporations and statutory institutions falling under the purview the different ministries.

But where was the attorney general’s department or the legal draftsman’s department? They were conspicuously absent from the list. Instead, there was mention under the ministry of finance and planning a department that does not even exist – that of legal affairs. Even Justice Minister Athauda Seneviratne, when questioned last week, said: “I don’t know what that is. There is no department of legal affairs”.

Minister Seneviratne did, however, confirm that the attorney general’s department and the legal draftsman’s department are now under the president’s office. He was not aware when he was given the justice portfolio that it would be minus these two departments. According to sources, Seneviratne hadn’t even known this on the night the gazette was being printed.

Speculation

There was a perceptible lack of clarity among the legal community last week about the fate of the two departments. Those who saw the gazette remarked that they were not listed under any of the ministries held by the president and therefore did not fall under his purview. Others speculated that the ‘department of legal affairs’ (that nobody had known existed) must be the attorney general’s department and the legal draftsman’s department rolled into one.

Matters of national importance such as these should not be a subject of speculation. Fortunately, a senior legal source who studied this subject clarified to this newspaper that, under the parent statute pertaining to the issuing of gazette notifications, if a particular subject or government institution is not listed the law deems it to be under the president.

The AG’s department feted its 125th anniversary in 2009 and was for many years listed under the ministry of justice. Previously, it functioned under an apolitical senate with a senator being appointed as a minister for the attorney general’s department in order to preserve its independence. The AG’s department in protocol is considered to be above the cabinet of ministers.

To further preserve the sanctity of this department, the 17th amendment to the constitution decreed that the president shall appoint the attorney general only once such appointment was approved by the constitutional council.

But in December 2008, President Mahinda Rajapaksa installed President’s Counsel Mohan Peiris as AG, overlooking Acting Attorney General Priyasath Dep, PC, who was next in line. Peiris was shuttled in from the private bar after having retired from the AG’s department.

Breakdown of law and order

It is not immediately clear what changes would occur due to the president’s “takeover” of the AG’s department. The move has both baffled and alarmed the legal community. But, as is often the case now, only a handful spoke openly about it.

Some, like Wijedasa Rajapakshe, were emboldened by their positions in parliament. Most lawyers, however, ran scared. The expression of opinion — even by individuals with no connection to the state — is today stifled by an incomprehensible fear of undefined repercussions.

Disastrous effect

“My view,” said Rajapakshe, “is that taking the attorney general’s department under the president who has enormous powers would have a disastrous effect on the country as far as law and order is concerned. The independence of the institution as well as the legal system will be failed.”

When it was pointed out that the president could have influenced the AG’s department (if he so wished) even while it was under the ministry of justice, Rajapakshe responded: “That is true, but it would be worse not to have any safeguards. Of course, the president has the right to take over the department. That is his prerogative. People have given him a mandate and he can do whatever he wants. But it is also a question of ethics.”

“I’m frightened,” said one lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The danger is whether this close proximity to the president will be used by either him or others associated with him to influence the objective decision-making process of the AG’s department.”

The counter issue, though, is that the president need not have resorted to taking over the AG’s department in order to exert influence over that institution. “He has a head of department who was not installed in terms of the constitution,” said the lawyer earlier quoted. “He is a direct political appointee who is, therefore, under obligation to him. The president could just give him a phone call and ask him to do something a particular way.”

Subservience

It is debatable whether Peiris, who is a respected lawyer, was influenced in this manner during his tenure as AG. It is a position he still holds. Still, one could argue on a point of technicality that a special political appointee — handpicked as he was from the private bar — would be required to evince a greater degree of subservience than somebody impartially appointed in line with the constitution.

For administrative purposes, there must be a ministry secretary — but it was not clear last week whether this would be the secretary to the president or the secretary to the ministry of defence. In fact, there is enough murkiness here to condemn the status quo as preposterous.

For instance, what is the legal affairs department? Most importantly, what is the strategic reason for the president taking over the AG’s department when whatever he wants to do can presumably be done while it remains under the ministry of justice?

Worrisome

“This can be a little worrisome, unless there are compelling administrative reasons to justify it,” said another senior president’s counsel who requested anonymity. “But I don’t know the reasons. This is bound to raise an issue among lawyers but most of them would prefer not to comment without informing themselves of the reasons.”
Some lawyers speculated that the deliberate omission of the AG’s department and the legal draftsman’s department from the gazette and the inclusion of a “department of legal affairs” may have been a deliberate act to test public reaction.

Lawyers like Upul Jayasuriya remember a time when the minister of justice or the secretary to the ministry of justice had to make an appointment to meet the AG.

They would then wait in the visitor’s room until the AG finished his business and it was their turn to go on. “The office of AG was held in high regard,” he said. “At all times, there has never been a murmur of allegation against any AG or any officer of the AG’s department that they were politically biased.”

And today? A young lawyer laughed when asked whether the AG’s department today is independent. “Yes,” he said, naturally asking not to be quoted. “It’s supposed to be. But to our lasting dismay, it most certainly isn’t.”

Hands–off AG’s dept

The functions of the AG’s department enshrines three instruments – the constitution, the criminal procedure code and the establishment code.

Unlike other government functionaries, the AG’s actions are not linked to ministerial directives or directives from any other person; nor do any of these instruments require the AG’s department to act in consultation with or on the advice of anybody else.

This is where the executive has generally maintained a hands-off approach towards the AG, enabling his department to function in an “autonomous” manner. But the involvement of a ministry was required for issues such as administrative control, allocation of finances and disciplinary procedure. Till April 30, this had been the business of the ministry of justice.

Legal sources, who chose to remain unnamed, said that apart from a few exception circumstances in the 1970s, successive ministers of justice as well as secretaries to the ministry of justice have “understood the situation and maintained an aloof type of relationship with the AG’s department”. They have not “interfered” with technical functions although there may have been intervention in financial and practical matters.

Nevertheless, there necessarily has to be a link between the state and the AG’s department. The institution has three roles: to be the legal advisor to the state, head of state, secretaries, etc; to defend the state and its agents in litigation; and work associated with criminal courts, whereby the department advises the police, files criminal proceedings and prosecutes alleged offenders. This last area of criminal work has nothing to do with state policy. The AG’s department could even indict a minister, if the need arises.

The role of the department, therefore, is defined as quasi judicial. There is necessarily a “state” element with regards to the tendering of legal advice to the government. When advising the state on a particular project, for instance, the AG’s department must take into consideration government policy and give effect to that policy. This is a legitimate link between the AG and the executive branch of state. There is also an obvious link where defence of the state in litigation is concerned.

But with regard to the role of the AG’s department in criminal work, there cannot and must not be a connection to or with the state. The department must have independence to decide whether or not to prosecute individuals, particularly powerful political allies of the government. There cannot be a situation where a politician, says, “Mr X is my man, don’t take action against him.”

What will the status quo be now, with the executive wielding direct and formal influence over the prosecution of the law and over the department that determines what goes to court? The situation is no longer confined to the possible use of influence. It has deteriorated to actual management, making it much harder to identify abuse. ~ courtesy: Lakbima News ~

http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/05/attorneygeneral_and_legal_draf.html

New approach towards media – Minister Rambukwella

New Mass Media and Communication Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, in one of his first interviews after assuming duties in his new office, on Friday says he wants to be open and free with all sections of the media. “I believe in a relationship where we could disagree, argue and completely ignore each other, but no one has the right to insult each other.”

Minister Rambukwella says he is concerned with improving the conditions for journalists and their welfare and will aim at shifting the overall approach of the local media to fulfill the needs of a post-conflict nation, primarily peace and development.

By Manjula FERNANDO

Q: The Ministry of Mass Media and Communication is considered a difficult, unpopular and hard-to-perform portfolio. What is your view on this?

A: There is nothing entirely black and white. There is good and bad in everything. That is how I look at it. I have been in charge of three ministries up to now. I have been quite content with the outcome and their performance during my tenure.

Having said that, I must also say that media and information is something which needs an altogether different approach. It has to be acceptable, the truth has to be disseminated, people should be fed with the truth so that they know what is going on around them.

I have handled the media for four years. We have an extremely healthy rapport and sound understanding. I believe in a relationship where we could disagree, argue, completely ignore, but no one has the right to insult each other.

Q: What will be your priority areas? Will you consider journalists’ welfare, improving working conditions and their training as areas needing priority?

A: These will be among the priorities. But there will be an overall new approach.

This is the post-conflict era, the society is now beginning to think differently. You need to look at it in that context. Then you realise that we have a strong platform for national development, development which we never saw during the last three decades.

The outlook of the people, the mentality of the people and the temperament are all different now. We must understand this and poise ourselves to cater to their different media needs. We have to get on with our democratic processes and of course post-conflict peace and development should be a priority.

The current attitudes of sections of the media need to change and I believe this could be done with consultation and understanding.

Q: What will be your policy towards the private and international media?

A: They have been in existence for decades. I believe they need to understand their responsibilities clearly and the definite role expected of them by society.

As for the relationship between the authorities and the private media, we should be able to sit around tables and discuss matters like decent human beings and iron out differences that may crop up from time to time.

It’s a continuous process. The media is not going to be static. Issues of the media, the competition between the private media, etc. will give rise to fresh challenges everyday.

So you need to work with them with an open mind. You cannot start your day with conclusions and pre-determinations and bank your decisions on those convictions.

Q: What have you got to say about the accusation, particularly directed from the Western bloc, that media freedom in Sri Lanka is suppressed?

A: I have been fighting against this allegation for the past four years as a media spokesman. We need to improve certain areas, but at the same time the people who point their fingers at us must illustrate a cleaner record, which is not the case in most instances. I can pinpoint some clear cases, but I don’t want to do it at this point since I have just assumed duties. I certainly don’t want to dwell on those past issues. I would like to start with an open mind and not take into consideration what happened during the conflict. I was handling the media during the most difficult period as the Government Media Spokesman. We were accused of many things and I had to put the record straight while maintaining a healthy relationship with the international and private media. That relationship still continues.

Q: The pension scheme for media personnel had been a promise of many of your predecessors. But this promise still remains a distant dream?

A: Making dreams a reality makes you a ‘doer’. I would like to think that way. Of course there can be financial constraints that we have to overcome first.

I believe in the senior citizens charter as well. Not just media personnel, but basically all senior citizens who were the driving force behind the country’s development should be looked after during their retirement age. The Senior Citizens Charter is very prevalent in developed countries.

Q: Dr. Mervyn Silva resigned from the post of Deputy Media Minister on Friday, the day you assumed duties in your new office. Who will be your new deputy minister?

A: That is the prerogative of the President.

http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2010/05/09/fea02.asp

Dispute but not insult – Minister Keheliya Rambukwella

The new media minister, Keheliya Rambukwella, has urged media to disagree with any point of view but not insult opposing points of view.

Speaking to journalists after assuming the new office, the minister said everybody has the right to disagree and disbelieve.

“We have the right to dispute; we have the right to disagree. We have the right to disbelieve but none of us have the right to insult each other,” he said.

If a change in the “media culture” is needed, the minister said, it is the duty of the media to make the change.

“We cannot rule media by punishment and pressure,” he said.

The former defence affairs spokesman during the height of the conflict with the Tamil Tigers was appointed as the new minister in charge of media and information by President Rajapaksa.

SB Dissanayake, Arumugam Thondaman and Prof. Tissa Vitharana were also appointed as new cabinet ministers in addition to the 37 ministers appointed earlier.

Controversial minister Mervyn Silva was earlier appointed as the deputy minister in charge of media. He was later appointed as the deputy minister of highways.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2010/05/100507_keheliya_media.shtml

Journalist Ruwan Weerakoon released on bail

Thursday, 06 May 2010

Journalist Ruwan Weerakoon who was arrested with some supporters of retired General Sarath Fonseka for allegedly conspiring against the government was released on bail by the Colombo Chief Magistrate Champa Janaki Rajaratna today on the direction of the Attorney General.

However the passport of the suspect was retained by the court and he was restrained from leaving the country.

He was further ordered to appear before the CID every Sunday mornings.

http://www.dailymirror.lk/index.php/news/3577-ruwan-released-on-bail.html

Change in top posts in state media institutes in Sri Lanka* Change in top posts in state media institutes in Sri Lanka

May 05, Colombo: Sri Lanka government has made several changes in the top posts of the state media, government sources say.

The independent presidential candidate Sarath Kongahage who supported the President Mahinda Rajapaksa in his run for the second term will assume duty as the Chairman of the state television Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC) tomorrow.

Outgoing Chairman and senior lecturer in Mass Communication Dr. Ariyarathna Athugala has been appointed as the as the new Director-General of Information of the Department of Government Information.

Dr. Athugala replaces Anusha Palpita who will relinquish his duties as the current Director General of Information tomorrow (May 06) to assume duties as Director General of the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRC).

The Secretary of the Ministry of Mass Media and Communication W.B. Ganegala is to act as the Chairman of the Independent Television Network fully owned by state.

Senior radio broadcaster Hudson Samarasinghe has been re-appointed as the Chairman of Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, sources say.

Sources also said that a change of the top post in state-owned print media organization Associated Newspapers Limited can be expected.

http://www.colombopage.com/archive_10/May1273073064CH.php

Mervyn’s sacrifice for media

April 29, 2010

In an inaugural press briefing that could only be termed ‘amusing’, the new Deputy Media Minister Mervyn Silva revealed that upon accepting the portfolio he and his wife had decided to sleep in separate rooms so that he will be available to serve the media at anytime of the day.

Silva added that he was prepared to forego his wellbeing and protect the media who were patriotic and honourable.

Regarding the incident where he sat at the feet of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Silva stated that without the D.A. Rajapaksa family he would have not entered politics. If not for D.A. Rajapaksa I would have today been a shopkeeper selling potatoes and onions at my father’s shop, Silva claimed.

http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=7978

An indicator of what comes next for Sri Lanka’s media

By Bob Dietz/Asia Program Coordinator

In Sri Lanka, there is a lull of sorts in outright attacks on the media as the Rajapaksa government takes stock of where it stands, which is in a very strong position: Last May the government declared a final victory in the brutal 30-year conflict with Tamil secessionists. In January, President Mahinda Rajapksa won a convincing victory in the presidential elections, and in April, his United Peoples Freedom Alliance took 144 seats of the 225 member seats in parliamentary elections, with a chance to build a political coalition that will give him the two-thirds majority he needs to begin rewriting the constitution.

The country’s media remain as partisan as ever, though some outlets have accepted that the Rajapaksa family has won, and have started to trim their anti-government stance. Others remain adamant in their opposition.

There was recently an indicator of what might come next for the media. The president appointed former Labor Minister Mervyn Silva to be his deputy minister of media and information. Silva’s appointment was confirmed by parliament on April 23.

We’ve before about Silva, and it wasn’t very encouraging. In March 2008, we complained in a letter to the president about an incident in which state television employees reported a spate of attacks that began after many were involved in a much-publicized on-air dispute in December 2007 with then-Labor Minister Silva. He had shown up at the station with a group of men to complain that the station hadn’t covered one of his speeches. Five staff members reported being stabbed, beaten, or slashed with razor blades by unidentified men, according to The Associated Press.

And an update on another case: The wife of a missing journalist took matters into her own hands on April 22, and hand-delivered letters to all the new members arriving in parliament. Sandhya Eknaligoda wanted them to take action on her husband Prageeth’s disappearance. Police tried to stop her, but she managed to get her letters into the MPs’ hands. There is still no explanation for what has happened to her husband, a columnist and cartoonist for Lanka e News. Eknaligoda has been missing since January 24.

http://cpj.org/blog/2010/04/an-indicator-of-what-comes-next-for-sri-lankas-med.php

New Sri Lankan cabinet likely to continue frosty relations with West

Feizal Samath, Foreign Correspondent

COLOMBO
Sri Lanka’s frosty relations with the West over human rights abuses will continue under a new cabinet appointed last week and perhaps jeopardise long-term trade and investment interests, analysts say.

Wijedasa Rajapakse from the opposition United National Front said:“If at all, our relations with the European Union and the United States will get worse.”

The bulk of Sri Lanka’s main exports – garments and tea – go to Europe and the United States, who were also key funding partners of Sri Lanka’s development until the government shifted reliance in recent years to countries in the East.

As the West criticised Sri Lanka’s human rights record towards the end of the 20-year civil war last year, the government started making new friends. Colombo developed stronger relations with India, China, Pakistan, Iran and Libya – countries which helped supply weapons during the war against the separatist Tamils in the north – and funding for development projects.

The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s strong bond of friendship with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, which included exchange visits by both leaders in the past two years, has resulted in Iran inviting the Sri Lankan president to be the chairman of the G-15 group of developing nations at its summit in Tehran on May 17.

The local Island newspaper on Monday reported that Mr Rajapaksa will lead a high-level delegation to the summit and will also have separate talks with Mr Ahmadinejad on furthering trade and economic ties.

But Mr Rajapakse, a member of parliament, questioned Sri Lanka’s ties with these countries. “Although the government is bending towards Myanmar [also close to the government], Iran, Libya and China, what have we got from them? We don’t export much to these countries,” he said.

“The foreign policy of the government will jeopardise our relations with the West and Europe, where most of our exports go,”

President Rajapaksa’s ruling United People’s Freedom Alliance swept the parliamentary poll on April 8 and last week’s appointment of a new cabinet of ministers showed no sign the government intends to soften its stance in two key areas: foreign affairs and the media.

Jehan Perera, a political analyst who writes a column in the Island newspaper, said: “It is more about continuity than change.”

The new foreign minister, Gamini Lakshman Peiris, is known to articulate strongly a tough government stand against the West. When he was international trade minister he once threatened to sue the EU over its suspension of tax-free concessions for Sri Lankan goods.

The government also named Mervyn Silva as deputy minister of media, an appointment that shocked many journalists. The boisterous politician often clashed with the media. On one occasion he came close to physically hitting a reporter at a television station.

Sri Lanka is one of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists, with several killed, disappeared or brutally assaulted by unknown persons during the tenure of the ruling UPFA, since 2004.

Mr Rajapakse, the opposition MP, said that some anti-West nationalists in the coalition government were also given powerful cabinet portfolios such as power and energy, housing and construction, and justice.

SI Keethaponcalan, the head of the political science department at Colombo University, said: “I don’t see Sri Lanka getting nervous [with the West]. If at all, it’s the West that would have to make the first move” towards reconciliation due to the economic opportunities in post-war Sri Lanka.

Soon after the ruling party’s election victory, Robert Blake, an US assistant secretary of state who has been a critic of the government’s human rights record, congratulated the president.

Geethanjana Gunawardene, the new deputy foreign minister, declined to comment on the country’s foreign policy, saying Mr Peiris, away attending a South Asian summit in Bhutan, would brief the media on the subject later.

Mr Rajapaksa, the president, who was also attending the Bhutan summit, met Mr Blake at the meeting. The government issued a photograph yesterday showing Mr Blake smiling while shaking hands with the president, but did not say what the two discussed.

Ever since the government stepped up fighting with Tamil rebels in 2007, reports of civilian casualties have drawn concern, particularly from human rights groups, the US and Europe. The government has strongly denied accusations that civilians were deliberately killed in the fighting, which ended in May 2009 when the rebels were defeated.

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100429/FOREIGN/704289877/1103