Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 28. De Klerk 1989 – 1990
By Mike Smith
27th of March 2011
27th of March 2011
In an interview with Murray La Vita of Beeld the Afrikaans daily, De Klerk acknowledged that he knows white South Africans viewed him as a traitor today. He also said that it did not bother him at all.
Verraaier? Daai naam pla hom nie
van die FW de Klerk-stigting in Plattekloof,
noord van Kaapstad. Foto: Jaco Marais
Murray La Vita
Die stem waarin hy oor sy vrou praat; oor die “bietjie heimwee” na hul plaas; oor die keer toe hy by die dood omgedraai het – dít is ’n sagte stem.
Die stem van ’n man wat ook ’n foto van sy ma langs sy lessenaar het.
’n Man wat sy geliefde Latyn-onderwyser in herinnering roep.
Maar wanneer oudpres. FW de Klerk gevra word om terug te kyk op Suid-Afrika se grondwetlike demokrasie wat nou ’n jong volwassene van 20 jaar is, praat hy met ’n ander stem.
Ineens hoor ons daardie stem wat op die oggend van 2 Februarie 1990 uit die parlement in Kaapstad alle uithoeke van die wêreld bereik het: “Die tyd vir onderhandeling het aangebreek.”
Dit is die stem wat ook in die Victor Verster-gevangenis buite die Paarl gehoor is deur ’n man wat gesit en TV kyk het.
“Dit was ’n asemrowende oomblik, want in een ingrypende daad het hy die situasie in Suid-Afrika feitlik genormaliseer. Ons wêreld het oornag verander.”
Oudpres. Nelson Mandela het destyds gesê: “ ... vir die eerste keer in amper 30 jaar gaan my foto en my woorde, en dié van my kamerade, in Suid-Afrikaanse koerante verskyn.”
Ironies is dit dan dat die man wat “die situasie in Suid-Afrika feitlik genormaliseer het”, nou sê: “Ek meen daar is rede tot groot kommer vir alle gebalanseerde Suid-Afrikaners wat ’n hoë prys op ons demokrasie plaas.
“Die elemente van federalisme in die Grondwet is in gevaar; die vryheid van die pers is in gevaar; die vryemarkekonomie is in gevaar; en die onafhanklikheid van die regbank is in gevaar.
“As daar ooit ’n tyd was vir die burgerlike gemeenskap om toe te tree tot die debat en tot aktiewe optrede met betrekking tot hierdie vier sake, dan is dit nou.”
Ons gesprek vind plaas in ’n konferensievertrek in die gebou in Plattekloof, noord van Kaapstad, vanwaar De Klerk se FW de Klerk-stigting bedryf word.
Die vertrek word onder meer versier deur groot doeke van Bettie Cilliers-Barnard en Cecil Skotnes en ’n bronsbeeld van ’n aanstormende olifant.
Op die tafel waarby ons sit, is nog ’n bronsbeeld: van ’n hand waarin ’n vrouefiguur lê.
Dit simboliseer die geboorte van iets nuuts in die hand van God, sê De Klerk.
“’n Vriend van my, Fana Malherbe, het dit gedoen. Toe ons nog ons plaas Wildepaardejacht (in Klein-Drakenstein, naby die Paarl) gehad het, het my vrou (Elita) my ’n slag verras.
“Sy het hom gevra om twee lewensgrootte perdekoppe te maak wat in die wind hardloop soos wilde perde.
Toe ons die plaas verkoop, het ons daai twee koppe wel na ons nuwe huis in Kaapstad gebring.”
Hulle was tien jaar lank op die plaas en woon die afgelope twee jaar in Fresnaye.
“Ons was baie lief vir die plaas, maar vier jaar gelede was ek amper dood. Ek het ’n kolonoperasie gehad (weens kanker), maar uiteindelik goed daardeur gekom. Maar ek was twee weke lank in ’n koma.
“En toe ek nou begin beter word, het ek myself begin afvra: As ek nou iets sou oorkom ... my vrou, synde ’n Griekse burger, maar wat sal aanbly in Suid-Afrika, kan sy alleen op die plaas bly? En die antwoord was néé.
“Toe het ons besluit om die plaas te verkoop en stad toe te trek. Ons is baie gelukkig in ons nuwe huis.
“Daar is nog so ’n bietjie heimwee by my na die plaas, maar nou ja, ons ry ook minder en kan meer tyd tuis deurbring en minder op die pad.”
In sy hoedanigheid as voorsitter van die FW de Klerk-stigting sowel as die Global Leadership Foundation tree De Klerk oor die wêreld heen op as spreker en neem hy deel aan vredeskonferensies.
“Aan die begin was die hooftema: Hoe het die wonderwerk in Suid-Afrika gebeur? Die wêreld het dit beskou as ’n wonderwerk. Maar ekself het ook moeg geword daarvoor en die pad was al stofgetrap ná ’n stadium.
“Toe het ek begin praat oor die bestuur van multikulturele gemeenskappe. Oor die uitdaging.
“Want ten grondslag van die meeste van die gewelddadige stryde deur die wêreld lê in die mislukking om multikulturele gemeenskappe behoorlik te orden en te bestuur.”
Hy praat ook oor die lesse wat ons geleer het met betrekking tot onderhandeling. En oor leierskap.
Of oor globalisering vanuit ’n Afrika-perspektief. Maar soms praat hy oor iets heeltemal anders.
“Ek het verlede Saterdag opgetree by wat genoem is Survivor’s Day van kankerpasiënte. Want ekself is ’n oorlewende van kanker.
Daar was 300 mense in Durbanville in ’n skoolsaal bymekaar wat almal kanker gehad het of nog behandel word daarvoor, maar wat as gevolg ook van die moderne wetenskap daarin slaag om ’n normale lewe te lei ondanks die kanker.”
Kanker dwing jou tot diep nadenke.
“As ’n mens ’n dodelike siekte kry en as gevolg van mediese ingryping en met die genade van die Here gespaar word en teen verwagtinge in selfs herstel, soos dit met mý die geval was, dan kom die besef by jou tuis: Maar ek het ékstra tyd gekry!”
Sy stem is hees.
“En ek het myself afgevra wat gaan ek dóén met daardie ekstra tyd. En dit het vir my ’n nuwe inspirasie gegee om te sê ek is gespáár.
“Om wát te doen? Om pósitief ’n bydrae te probeer lewer. ’n Mens kan natuurlik nie op élke lewensterrein ...
“Jy moet volgens jou talente en jou ervaring.
So ek het met nuwe energie my begin toewy aan wat ons doen hier by die FW de Klerk-stigting en by die Global Leadership Foundation waar ons internasionaal advies gee aan regerings – nie vir wins nie – in die ontwikkelende wêreld ten opsigte van goeie regering en om beter ekonomiese vooruitsigte te skep.”
Het die Suid-Afrikaanse regering al van hierdie dienste gebruik gemaak?
Stadig plooi ’n glimlag oor sy gesig.
“Nee. En ek twyfel of hulle mý sal nader.
“Ek dink hul oordeel sal wees dat ek bevooroordeeld is. Hulle weet dat ek op partypolitieke vlak oortuig is dat die ANC te groot en te sterk is en dat opposisiepolitiek in Suid-Afrika versterk moet word.
Ons het ’n mooi demokrasie op papier. Ons sal eers ’n werklik gesonde demokrasie hê as daar onsekerheid ontstaan oor wie die volgende verkiesing gaan wen.
“Om dít te bereik glo ek die ANC moet skeur en ek dink hy gáán skeur.”
Ja, stem hy saam, hy kan ’n stywe pas handhaaf.
“Ek is geseën met baie energie. Ek word nie gou moeg nie. Ek kán hard werk en ek geniét dit om hard te werk.
“Dit klink ’n bietjie selfverheffend om dit so te stel ... Ek voel baie jonger as wat ek is en ek handhaaf ’n tempo van ’n ietwat jonger mens. Tewens, ek het besluit ek wil leef asof ek 69 is.
“Ondanks die feit dat ek volgende jaar 75 word. Vir my is dít die norm:
“Hoe was ek toe ek 69 was? En ek probeer my aktiwiteit op dieselfde vlak hou as wat dit toentertyd was en nie in ’n mate selfbejammerend te word – ek is nou ’n ou man nie.”
Hy glimlag.
“Maar ek wil nou darem ook nie te jonk wees nie; daarom het ek 69 gekies en nie 59 nie.”
Hy en Mandela “het nogal goeie vriende geword”.
“Omdat hy oud is, pla ek hom nie, maar ons bel op verjaardae mekaar.
“Ons het al by mekaar geëet aan huis. Ons sou nóú by hulle gaan kuier het toe ek ’n slag opgegaan het hier rondom die Wêreldbeker, maar toe is my vlug vertraag en moes ons die afspraak kanselleer. Ons het ’n goeie verhouding.”
Hy het al baie verguising beleef; is al vir ’n verraaier uitgekryt.
“Ek is oortuig dat wat ons gedoen het, nie ék nie – ons, van 1989 af tot 1994 in die béste belang van almal in Suid-Afrika was en dat ons ’n katastrofe afgeweer en voorkom het; dat ons honderdduisende lewens gered het wat ingeboet sou word in ’n vernietigende stryd wat hierdie land tot stóf sou vernietig.
“En daarom,” sê hy “as iemand my ’n verraaier noem, ontstel dit my nié, want ek glo ek het niemand verraai nie, maar met my foute en al, my wérklike bes probeer om juis almal se belange ten beste te dien.”
Hy en sy vrou het ’n “fantastiese verhouding”.
“Ek deel alles met haar. En dikwels as ek te juridies raak, is sy die een wat sê: ‘Maar wat hiervan? En wat daarvan?’
En sy vul my aan op ’n wonderlike manier.
“Sy gaan órals waar ek gaan saam met my. Dwársdeur die wêreld. Want ek het min tyd oor as ek na my ouderdom kyk en élke oomblik saam met haar is kosbaar.”
But was he a traitor or a victim of circumstance? We need to look at this serious accusation of treachery in an objective manner. In the old South Africa as well as during the Anglo Boer War, the punishment for treason was the death penalty, as it still is amongst many nations of the world.
At the same time of P.W. Botha’s reign during the 1980’s, F.W. De Klerk was Minister of Education. The school set work books suddenly started to change. Kids had to study all sorts of pro-black anti-white books such as “To kill a Mockingbird” and “Fiela se Kind” (Fiela’s Child). Dutch works such as “De Onrustzaaier” to invoke sympathy with Communist agitators were shoved down the children’s throats.
On the television, programmes such as the Cosby Show, Webster, later the fresh Prince of Bell-Aire, etc were shown that portrayed blacks as educated and the same as whites.
It was clear that a machine was in operation. A propaganda machine that was suppose to prepare our minds for the final takeover by Marxist Communist forces. F.W. de Klerk as the minister of Education was one of the major gears in this machine.
De Klerk at the time of the Rubicon Speech in 1985 was a staunch Conservative in the National Party. He was actually seen as a “major conservative stumbling block” by journalists such as Allister Sparks of the Rand Daily Mail who exposed the so called Mulder-gate or Information Scandal.
Nevertheless, as we have seen, De Klerk was the man who held P.W. Botha back on the banks of the Rubicon.
How conservative was F.W. de Klerk really? He was on the one hand in favour of segregated Universities, but on the other hand supported equal financial support to all schools. Was he a hypocrite, a “Tweegat-jakkels”, (a fox with two burrows)? This trait of F.W. de Klerk would evince throughout his life. The ultimate question needs to be asked. What made F.W. de Klerk change his ideology from one of the most conservatives in the NP government to that of one of the most liberal?
We know that in the early 1990’s he paid a serious of visits to Russia. Even visited the mausoleum of Lenin. Did F.W. de Klerk undergo Communist re-education?
How could such a conservative man be the one who ultimately gave the country away to black Marxist terrorist scum?
Within four years after the Rubicon Speech on exactly the same day, 15th of August 1989 De Klerk became the new president of South Africa, through a Palace revolution inside the NP which was a de facto coup d'état orchestrated by him and Pik Botha and the other conspirators of the Ou Sterrewag meeting in 1985.
The time was right for a new man to implement the decisions taken at that clandestine, cloak and dagger meeting. P.W. Botha groomed Finance Minister Barend Du Plessis as his successor, but the NP caucus chose F.W. de Klerk…”The man with the smile”…
That is how the newspapers and the rest of the media dubbed him. Whenever you saw F.W. de Klerk in a photograph or on television he always had a smile or a glitter in his eye. He radiated optimism. In fact he had the face of the perfect traitor. He was the perfect Pide Piper.
By the time F.W. came to power, people were tired of the face of his predecessor P.W. Botha.
P.W. Botha’s always serious and cynic face for the past ten years had become the subject of comical songs such as “Sit dit af” (Switch it off) by gay musician Johannes Kerkorrel who were referring to P.W. Botha’s constant talking head on SABC television.
Also Pieter Dirk-Uys a gay comedian started an entire satirical age against the National Party and P.W. Botha in particular, mocking him licking his lips and wagging his finger.
When De Klerk entered the stage, there was no more mocking…only praise and hope.
De Klerk, who is a chain smoker, never smoked in public or on the television. His perfect smile was regularly checked and cleaned for the cameras. His suit jackets swapped in order for him not to stink of smoke before important meetings. Everything about him was a false front. De Klerk became the new smiling puppet of his masters the major Anglo American business people involved in SA, and their spy agencies such as the CIA and MI6. He was their man that would deliver the riches of the treasure chest of the world into their laps.
Nevertheless, De Klerk was chosen to finally “Cross the Rubicon”.
Almost immediately after coming to power he started implementing the policies drawn up after the clandestine meeting at the old Sterrewag.
In September 1989 he allowed a demonstration of 35,000 dissident blacks, agitated by Communist forces, known as “The Big March” in full contravention of the State of Emergency.
On the 15th of October 1989 Walter Sisulu and seven other Marxist terrorists (sorry, political prisoners) were released. With De Klerk’s permission, they were welcomed back into Soweto at a huge ANC rally…the first in 25 years.
In the days after the fall of the Berlin Wall on the 9th of November 1989 that marked the end of the Cold War and the assumed end of the Communist threat to South Africa, De Klerk, on 16th November 1989 declared all beaches open and scrapped the Separate Amenities Act a cornerstone of Apartheid.
On 24 November 1989 he scrapped the Group Areas Act another cornerstone of Apartheid, in four “free settlement areas” that allowed blacks to live in white areas.
On the 13th of December, De Klerk entertained Nelson Mandela, a convicted Marxist terrorist, prisoner and mass murderer to a full banquet at Tuynhuis, his official residence in Cape Town…our equivalent of the White House…at full taxpayer expense.
One would think that all these gestures would have had a positive effect on the violence in South Africa at the time. Wrong! Quite the contrary.
As early as September 1989 the reports started streaming in via Roger Thurow of the Wall Street Journal, “Eleven dead in Mitchell’s Plain, four dead in Lavender Hill, and two dead in Khayelitsha. In all, church groups said 25 people died (police confirmed 12 deaths) and more than 100 were injured in the black townships around Cape Town…
Nevertheless the opening of parliament in the 2nd of February 1990 was drawing nearer. About 500 journalists from all over the world were congregating in Cape Town to hear F.W. de Klerk’s speech at the opening of parliament…would it be another disappointing Rubicon speech?
At this stage we need to halt and think what I said in Part 26 about the role of government, what the constitution is and what F.W. de Klerk did.
Remember that the constitution is a set of laws to control the government, not the people. The constitution is a set of laws spelling out what the Government can do…everything else is forbidden. The constitution states the basic individual rights of its citizens such as the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. The sole purpose of government is to protect those rights.
When the South African public voted the National party into power (again) in 1987, they expected the social contract between the citizens and the government to be upheld and the government had no right to act outside of their mandate to rule as stated in the constitution.
So far we have seen that the National Party held a secret meeting at the Old Sterrewag a Military Intelligence conference place, on the 2nd of August 1985 and completely outside of their mandate conspired to hand the country over to Black Marxist Terrorists. This in itself is enough to try the entire previous NP government for conspiracy to commit treason.
The scrapping of the Separate Amenities Act as well as the Group Areas Act allowed dangerous Blacks and Coloured criminals into White communities . It endangered every single basic right that we allowed the government to exercise.
If one thinks back to the legal definition of treason, then not only were they betraying the citizens of South Africa, but actively supporting its well known enemies.
The release of legally convicted and highly dangerous terrorists such as Walter Sisulu and other Marxist terrorists without them having to denounce violence was a crime against the people of South Africa…Black and white…for the subsequent violence, terrorism and downright murder that followed across South Africa were directly orchestrated by them. It was a direct cause of F.W. De Klerk’s premature ejaculation to keep the Anti-Apartheid whores of the world happy.
I do not know how to emphasize this enough. We should never forget what a Constitution is and the limits it sets on government.
Within days of coming to power and within a few months thereafter, F.W. De Klerk and the NP were not only criminally acting against the constitution and outside of their mandate to rule, but also deliberately caused treason against ALL South Africans.
The government was constitutionally bound to protect ALL its citizens against the initiation of Force. The NP government was supposed to protect the safety of all its citizens.
History speaks for itself. The NP and De Klerk as State President. Failed magnanimously in their basic tasks as a government within the first few days of him coming to power.
1989 was not even out when we should have had them all on the stand for treason or conspiring to commit treason.
Considering that SA had the death penalty in place for treason in those days, I would say that F.W. de Klerk should consider himself lucky that he is still alive today. History shows the public killing their leaders for far less than what he had done
Anyway..If you think that was bad…wait for the next edition where more evidence of treason will be revealed.
At the same time of P.W. Botha’s reign during the 1980’s, F.W. De Klerk was Minister of Education. The school set work books suddenly started to change. Kids had to study all sorts of pro-black anti-white books such as “To kill a Mockingbird” and “Fiela se Kind” (Fiela’s Child). Dutch works such as “De Onrustzaaier” to invoke sympathy with Communist agitators were shoved down the children’s throats.
On the television, programmes such as the Cosby Show, Webster, later the fresh Prince of Bell-Aire, etc were shown that portrayed blacks as educated and the same as whites.
It was clear that a machine was in operation. A propaganda machine that was suppose to prepare our minds for the final takeover by Marxist Communist forces. F.W. de Klerk as the minister of Education was one of the major gears in this machine.
De Klerk at the time of the Rubicon Speech in 1985 was a staunch Conservative in the National Party. He was actually seen as a “major conservative stumbling block” by journalists such as Allister Sparks of the Rand Daily Mail who exposed the so called Mulder-gate or Information Scandal.
Nevertheless, as we have seen, De Klerk was the man who held P.W. Botha back on the banks of the Rubicon.
How conservative was F.W. de Klerk really? He was on the one hand in favour of segregated Universities, but on the other hand supported equal financial support to all schools. Was he a hypocrite, a “Tweegat-jakkels”, (a fox with two burrows)? This trait of F.W. de Klerk would evince throughout his life. The ultimate question needs to be asked. What made F.W. de Klerk change his ideology from one of the most conservatives in the NP government to that of one of the most liberal?
We know that in the early 1990’s he paid a serious of visits to Russia. Even visited the mausoleum of Lenin. Did F.W. de Klerk undergo Communist re-education?
How could such a conservative man be the one who ultimately gave the country away to black Marxist terrorist scum?
Within four years after the Rubicon Speech on exactly the same day, 15th of August 1989 De Klerk became the new president of South Africa, through a Palace revolution inside the NP which was a de facto coup d'état orchestrated by him and Pik Botha and the other conspirators of the Ou Sterrewag meeting in 1985.
The time was right for a new man to implement the decisions taken at that clandestine, cloak and dagger meeting. P.W. Botha groomed Finance Minister Barend Du Plessis as his successor, but the NP caucus chose F.W. de Klerk…”The man with the smile”…
That is how the newspapers and the rest of the media dubbed him. Whenever you saw F.W. de Klerk in a photograph or on television he always had a smile or a glitter in his eye. He radiated optimism. In fact he had the face of the perfect traitor. He was the perfect Pide Piper.
By the time F.W. came to power, people were tired of the face of his predecessor P.W. Botha.
P.W. Botha’s always serious and cynic face for the past ten years had become the subject of comical songs such as “Sit dit af” (Switch it off) by gay musician Johannes Kerkorrel who were referring to P.W. Botha’s constant talking head on SABC television.
Also Pieter Dirk-Uys a gay comedian started an entire satirical age against the National Party and P.W. Botha in particular, mocking him licking his lips and wagging his finger.
When De Klerk entered the stage, there was no more mocking…only praise and hope.
De Klerk, who is a chain smoker, never smoked in public or on the television. His perfect smile was regularly checked and cleaned for the cameras. His suit jackets swapped in order for him not to stink of smoke before important meetings. Everything about him was a false front. De Klerk became the new smiling puppet of his masters the major Anglo American business people involved in SA, and their spy agencies such as the CIA and MI6. He was their man that would deliver the riches of the treasure chest of the world into their laps.
Nevertheless, De Klerk was chosen to finally “Cross the Rubicon”.
Almost immediately after coming to power he started implementing the policies drawn up after the clandestine meeting at the old Sterrewag.
In September 1989 he allowed a demonstration of 35,000 dissident blacks, agitated by Communist forces, known as “The Big March” in full contravention of the State of Emergency.
On the 15th of October 1989 Walter Sisulu and seven other Marxist terrorists (sorry, political prisoners) were released. With De Klerk’s permission, they were welcomed back into Soweto at a huge ANC rally…the first in 25 years.
In the days after the fall of the Berlin Wall on the 9th of November 1989 that marked the end of the Cold War and the assumed end of the Communist threat to South Africa, De Klerk, on 16th November 1989 declared all beaches open and scrapped the Separate Amenities Act a cornerstone of Apartheid.
On 24 November 1989 he scrapped the Group Areas Act another cornerstone of Apartheid, in four “free settlement areas” that allowed blacks to live in white areas.
On the 13th of December, De Klerk entertained Nelson Mandela, a convicted Marxist terrorist, prisoner and mass murderer to a full banquet at Tuynhuis, his official residence in Cape Town…our equivalent of the White House…at full taxpayer expense.
One would think that all these gestures would have had a positive effect on the violence in South Africa at the time. Wrong! Quite the contrary.
As early as September 1989 the reports started streaming in via Roger Thurow of the Wall Street Journal, “Eleven dead in Mitchell’s Plain, four dead in Lavender Hill, and two dead in Khayelitsha. In all, church groups said 25 people died (police confirmed 12 deaths) and more than 100 were injured in the black townships around Cape Town…
Nevertheless the opening of parliament in the 2nd of February 1990 was drawing nearer. About 500 journalists from all over the world were congregating in Cape Town to hear F.W. de Klerk’s speech at the opening of parliament…would it be another disappointing Rubicon speech?
At this stage we need to halt and think what I said in Part 26 about the role of government, what the constitution is and what F.W. de Klerk did.
Remember that the constitution is a set of laws to control the government, not the people. The constitution is a set of laws spelling out what the Government can do…everything else is forbidden. The constitution states the basic individual rights of its citizens such as the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. The sole purpose of government is to protect those rights.
When the South African public voted the National party into power (again) in 1987, they expected the social contract between the citizens and the government to be upheld and the government had no right to act outside of their mandate to rule as stated in the constitution.
So far we have seen that the National Party held a secret meeting at the Old Sterrewag a Military Intelligence conference place, on the 2nd of August 1985 and completely outside of their mandate conspired to hand the country over to Black Marxist Terrorists. This in itself is enough to try the entire previous NP government for conspiracy to commit treason.
The scrapping of the Separate Amenities Act as well as the Group Areas Act allowed dangerous Blacks and Coloured criminals into White communities . It endangered every single basic right that we allowed the government to exercise.
If one thinks back to the legal definition of treason, then not only were they betraying the citizens of South Africa, but actively supporting its well known enemies.
The release of legally convicted and highly dangerous terrorists such as Walter Sisulu and other Marxist terrorists without them having to denounce violence was a crime against the people of South Africa…Black and white…for the subsequent violence, terrorism and downright murder that followed across South Africa were directly orchestrated by them. It was a direct cause of F.W. De Klerk’s premature ejaculation to keep the Anti-Apartheid whores of the world happy.
I do not know how to emphasize this enough. We should never forget what a Constitution is and the limits it sets on government.
Within days of coming to power and within a few months thereafter, F.W. De Klerk and the NP were not only criminally acting against the constitution and outside of their mandate to rule, but also deliberately caused treason against ALL South Africans.
The government was constitutionally bound to protect ALL its citizens against the initiation of Force. The NP government was supposed to protect the safety of all its citizens.
History speaks for itself. The NP and De Klerk as State President. Failed magnanimously in their basic tasks as a government within the first few days of him coming to power.
1989 was not even out when we should have had them all on the stand for treason or conspiring to commit treason.
Considering that SA had the death penalty in place for treason in those days, I would say that F.W. de Klerk should consider himself lucky that he is still alive today. History shows the public killing their leaders for far less than what he had done
Anyway..If you think that was bad…wait for the next edition where more evidence of treason will be revealed.
NOG N' VERRAAIER?
- Premier of Western Cape Province (21 June 2002 - 28 April 2004).
- Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism of the Republic of South Africa (29 April 2004 - 10 May 2009).
- IT TOOK ONE DAY FOR HIM TO DEFECT TO THE ANC......................
