Malema slammed for singing 'Kill The Boer' at mass funeral
Ten people – EFF members – died in a head-on collision near Ulundi, KwaZulu-Natal, while returning home after a June 16 rally in Durban on Monday.
Malema has been condemned by his critics – including US President Donald Trump and the world's richest man, Elon Musk – for his decision to back the controversial struggle song.
On Sunday, Julius Malema attended the mass funeral of 10 EFF members who were killed in a KZN bus crash. The bus tragically collided with a truck on the R34 near Ulundi in KZN.
The funeral – dubbed the June 16 battalion – took place in Vryheid and was attended by the party leader and his leadership.
Malema told the crowd of those who had died in the horror crash: 'They died while in pursuit of life. They were travelling with hope in their hearts. But the journey that should have taken them toward opportunity ended in tragedy.'
Malema – who used the opportunity to mobilise EFF party members – promised to build a house for the families of those who had died.
As he does with many rallies, Malema closed the event by singing Kill The Boer. However, his decision left many South Africans on social media questioning the timing and choice of song.
@LangelihleMaph1: 'If there's no connection between these deaths and the Boer, why sing the song?'
@MariaJacob49230: 'No respect for the dead, Julius Malema? You're at a funeral, not a political rally! This has been an occasion for a Psalm.'
@muzizaks: 'What shameful display for lack of sense of occasion'.
Meanwhile, Gayton McKenzie has condemned the EFF and Julius Malema for their decision to sing Kill The Boer.
Speaking at the welcoming party for the Proteas at OR Tambo International Airport, the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture claimed that the anti-Apartheid song had no place in modern-day society.
He said of the national cricket team, which recently won the ICC World Test Championships: 'This country has amazing sportspeople, and it is the greatest sporting nation in the world. If you do not agree with me, or if you want to argue with me, I do not argue with idiots. EFF leader Julius Malema and party leadership in Free State. Image: X/@EFFSouthAfrica
'Today, we had Black, Indian, White, and Coloured kids singing the Temba Bavuma song. Why should we worry about nonsense like Kill The Boer? These players [Proteas] will go places because we have the best team ever.
'Those people who are singing the Kill The Boer song are idiots'.
He added in an X post: 'They are the biggest idiots, the current South Africa has no place for such a song. It has no value and contributes nothing towards the SA we are trying to construct.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 .
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The GNU has failed the only test that matters: growing the economy and delivering jobs
The national coalition is entering yet another week it may not survive. While there have been real mistakes of leadership – and the ANC and the DA cannot give up their patterns from the past – it is becoming increasingly obvious that what is missing is a sense of mission. Because the parties involved are not focusing on the economy, and particularly youth unemployment, the coalition can give the impression that it is doomed. When the national coalition was formed and the ANC and the DA agreed to work together, along with eight other parties, there was some discussion about how to assess, in the future, whether the coalition was a success. Because the lived experience of so many South Africans has become so much tougher so quickly, it was pretty obvious, back in June 2024, that the real test was the economy. As has been said many, many, many times before, our youth unemployment is now so bad that it is easily the biggest long-term problem we face. Despite this obvious fact, disputed by nobody, the coalition has done nothing. At the same time, it appears the coalition is missing a sense of unity around a purpose. There appears to be no sense of 'mission' that could help bring people from different political backgrounds together. Instead, it can give the impression of a group of people united only by their belief that they should be in Cabinet and the MK party and the EFF should be out of it. If the coalition had created a sense of mission by focusing on youth unemployment, perhaps this could have brought them together. Surely parties as far apart politically as the PAC and the FF+ agree that helping young people into jobs and giving them hope is vital for our future. If the coalition had this sense of mission, perhaps it would have been able to overcome the lack of leadership and personal chemistry that is currently on display. It would have been much easier to overcome disagreements over the Budget, or the still-strange firing of the DA's Andrew Whitfield, if there had been another ultimate aim. But that is curiously lacking. And, strangely, it is not just the coalition. Direction unknown While there are many differing views about whether a National Dialogue would really be constructive, one of the most powerful arguments against it is that it will lack focus. It appears to include people from almost all parts of our public life. And their job is to discuss pretty much everything. This will probably be fatal to the process. It is hard to see what can really be achieved. Surely no decisions will be made that will alter the nature of our economy. Instead, it appears that many of our politicians, whether they are a part of the coalition, or supporting a dialogue, are more comfortable discussing issues other than the economy. There is a curious lack of focus. Of course, Operation Vulindlela and the progress it is making should not be ignored. Some of its measures, dealing with load shedding and the progress it's made at Transnet, are making slow changes to our economy that should be celebrated. But our politicians appear to lack the will to make the real changes that will matter. This is part of a pattern which took hold some time ago. Fifteen years ago, I made the same point about the ANC's lack of focus on the economy. At least eight years ago, ANC members made the same point on these pages. Government itself said back in 2020, even before the pandemic, that the economy was not going to grow unless there was action. This lack of focus obviously predates President Cyril Ramaphosa. Rather, it may be a feature of how the ANC has governed over the years. In 2007, days after winning the ANC leadership at Polokwane, Jacob Zuma gave very few clues on governance priorities. In 2009, the ANC said it had five 'apex priorities'. During the Zuma era in government, this lack of focus revealed itself in interesting ways. For example, in 2014 he appointed inter-ministerial committees to deal with particular issues. These committees were huge. The committee appointed to work against corruption (this was in the relatively early days of the Zuma era – the full irony of this committee would emerge later) included nine ministers. The committee on information and publicity had 12 (twelve!) members. It should be no surprise to anyone that nothing constructive was done here. Too many cooks There is, of course, a structural reason for all of this. As our society is so diverse, with so many different constituencies, politicians often struggle to be involved in discussions that will involve trade-offs. They do not want to be seen to be losing a single vote. The fact that the ANC set the tone for this may well be because it had the most diverse group of constituencies of all our parties. Simply put, it was always too broad a church to create economic policy that could include trade-offs. Something similar might well be happening today. The coalition is simply too broad to make the decisions that matter. For this reason, the National Dialogue might well appear to fail as well. It is true that there are many other factors holding our economy back. They include the fact that so many people have literally been betrayed by our education system, that inequality generally harms economic growth and that our infrastructure has been allowed to rot. None of this will be overcome without political will. For the moment, members of the national coalition are displaying none of the will, and the unity, necessary to change this. There will be many casualties as a result of this inaction.
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Home Affairs and my journey to a Smart ID card: A positive tale through operational challenges
In recent times, as South Africans look to the Government of National Unity for signs of progress, it's encouraging to see that at least one ministry – Home Affairs – is beginning to deliver tangible results. In particular, we are led to believe that the old green ID books are being phased out in favour of new Smart ID cards. Even as we hear that good news, government promises are met with scepticism: some in the media and many residents claim the improvements are illusory and that systemic inefficiencies persist. My recent encounter with Home Affairs offers a nuanced view, equal parts disconcerting and optimistic. Several months ago, reassured by public statements, I booked a 9am appointment online at my local branch, in George, Western Cape. Upon arrival, I was directed to a short queue of about 10 people with appointments, while a second queue – nearly 10 times as long along the sidewalk — accommodated walk-ins. I felt quite chuffed that I had booked ahead; so far, so good. At the entrance, those of us with bookings were handed a clipboard bearing a printed list. We were asked to find and cross out our names to confirm attendance. While a practical system in theory, the font was so tiny that I had genuine difficulty locating my name. My eyesight is perfectly serviceable; the issue was the microscopic print. Inside, I handed my green ID book to the official who checked his screen and returned my book to me. No, he explained, I was not yet eligible to apply for a Smart ID because I wasn't born in South Africa. But, but… the public announcements! No, my ID book and Permanent Resident certificate weren't enough — yet. He offered two choices. I could — right then and there and for a fee — apply for a new green ID book somehow different from my current one, and once with that in hand, I could then return later, maybe two months, maybe four, for the Smart ID; or I could skip that step and wait to receive a text message confirming my eligibility for the Smart ID. I chose the latter. Smooth, until… The text never arrived but I kept tabs on public updates. A few months later, the ministry announced that non-citizen Permanent Residents could now apply for the Smart ID. That's me. The online application process was smooth and straightforward — until the very last step. I was prompted to sign and enter the location where I was signing. But there was no functionality to do this electronically no matter how I hovered my cursor. I couldn't sign nor input a location. I submitted it anyway, albeit with trepidation. Rejected. I tried again. Rejected. I saved, logged out, returned hours later, and without making any changes tried once more. This time, inexplicably, my application was accepted. Within minutes, I received a confirmation email and text instructing me to bring my green ID book and Permanent Resident certificate to Home Affairs. Right as rain! Naturally, I booked a fresh appointment. I arrived at 9.45am for a 10am slot, with no sidewalk queues at all, for neither the booked nor the walk-ins. The clipboard and its impossible font size returned. Once again, I strained to locate and strike through my name. I approached the same officer from my earlier visit. He noted the time, 9.45am, and asked me to wait until 10am. I pointed out that no one else was waiting, so please… He politely insisted that I take a seat. But, I said, there's no one here, can't you help me now? No, please take a seat. So I sat a mere three metres away, watching him do absolutely nothing for the next fourteen minutes. Uh-oh. I approached his desk at 9.59am. He found my record in the system, and handed me ticket number 70, directing me to the biometrics desk. Onward. The biometrics officer was also unoccupied and signalled that I would need to wait until my number 70 was formally called. Dutifully as ever, I sat in one of the many empty chairs not 10 metres from his desk. Sure enough, two minutes later, number 70. I provided fingerprints and a signature; into the booth for a photo. Done within five minutes. He told me to wait again until my number 70 came up for verification. Within minutes, I was seated with a new officer. Wow, this is now going very well. She asked to take my fingerprints. I pointed across the room to the biometrics chap and said I had just come from there so all was well. No, she said, I must verify that you are you. I can only presume that this was a precaution to ensure I hadn't changed identities in the 20m walk and four-minute wait. Okay, fine. The scan of my fingerprints produced an amber status, not green, not red. She asked me to try again. This time it turned red. I was sent back to redo the biometrics. The entire process was repeated, and once again I was instructed to wait until my number 70 was called. Operational challenges, as it is said. I found a seat close to the same officer, who had by then stepped away, possibly for a tea break. Twenty minutes later, she returned and number 70 was called. Again: amber, then red! She called over her manager and explained the issue. The manager authorised an override with her fingerprint. Then the officer used her own fingerprint to regain access to her computer. Bureaucratic ballet done and dusted. The officer now asked for my original Permanent Resident certificate. I handed it over, protected from wear and tear in the plastic sleeve I store it in. She asked if I had the original. I said yes, that's it, in your hand. With nary a glance, she made copies of both my certificate and ID book. As she reviewed my online application. I braced myself for a rejection or at least a request to sign, thinking back to the signature I'd never been able to provide online. She said not a word and must have used my signature from the biometrics officer. No issue, all in order. She informed me that I'd receive a notification in about six months to collect my Smart ID. It could be sooner, she added, but delays were likely given the newness of the system. Within the hour, I received confirmation of the day's progress via text and email. Pretty good. Weeks, not months And then — who needs six months? Less than five weeks later, I received a text and email telling me that my card was ready. One said my 'replacement ID', the other said 'ID reissue', but I pretended not to be concerned about the slight difference and the absence of the word 'Smart' that Home Affairs has so loudly proclaimed. Another 10am appointment, another tiny font, immediately at the reception chap's counter. Looked at his computer, gave me a number and sent me upstairs for ID collections. Up I go, into a smaller room with desks for three agents. I was second in the queue, and within five minutes I was at the desk of the only agent working, the very same one who weeks before couldn't verify my fingerprints downstairs. Up here, with a different fingerprint scanner, I figured this was going to be easy. No such luck. Several attempts. My fingerprints were not accepted. It seems that though fingerprints don't age, scanning machines can't handle old man skin — that's mine. She escorts me downstairs to a counter to await someone to override the system. Fifteen minutes later, my excitement drained by my impatience, along comes a young agent who slowly makes things happen; logging into the computer at that desk took another five minutes. But then it happened — I signed in a few places, he copied a few documents, and my Smart ID was in my hand! All good! But not fully the end of the story. As he handed me my old green ID book, he said I should keep it in a safe place. I said I'd rather just throw it away. No, he repeated, keep it in a safe place. Once at home I read the letter from Home Affairs that accompanied the card. It said, and I quote: '… and replaces the green barcoded identity document which should be handed in at the Department of Home Affairs when issued with a Smart ID Card'. But wait, the agent just gave it to me, told me to safeguard it, what's a guy to do now? Just smile. On the card itself is printed 'Date of Issue 30 May 2025'. That was a mere two weeks after my application was accepted, not the six months I was warned about, thank you. But if it was issued on 30 May, why did it take three weeks to tell me it was ready for collection? Just asking for a friend. So I now am relishing the last round of a rousing ride — an experience at once off-putting and ultimately positive. While much remains to be improved, my cautious optimism remains intact. Perhaps this is what progress looks like in South Africa: slow, uneven, but moving forward nonetheless. DM
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The challenge of cohesion: Lessons from Singapore for South Africa's diverse tapestry
From 24 to 26 June 2025 I attended the International Conference for Cohesive Societies (ICCS) in Singapore, a global gathering of policymakers, civil society leaders and thinkers committed to the idea that diversity, if carefully nurtured, can be a nation's greatest strength. Held in a city-state widely recognised for its success in managing multiculturalism, the conference offered profound insights, not only into global best practices, but also into the quiet struggles and aspirations of nations grappling with identity, cohesion and belonging. The address by His Excellency Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the president of Singapore, was particularly arresting. He spoke of diverse nations as being like quilts, composed of many distinct patches, each representing a different community, sewn together to create something both beautiful and meaningful. Yet, he cautioned, when storms rage, be they economic, political or social, the quilt may fray, its seams come apart, its integrity tested. Perhaps, he mused, we must begin to weave new cloth, stronger, more resilient, where the threads of our many identities are not merely stitched side by side, but entwined in a shared fabric of common purpose. It was a metaphor that struck deep, not just for its elegance, but for its resonance with the South African condition. South Africa, too, is a patchwork nation. We are black, white, coloured, Indian and many other shades in between. We are Zulu, Xhosa, Afrikaans, English, Tswana, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, African traditionalist and secular. Our diversity is immense. It is beautiful. But it is also the source of some of our deepest tensions. The fundamental question we face is this: Are we, first and foremost, South Africans, a single people forged in shared destiny, or are we, still, primarily members of our separate communities who just happen to coexist within the same borders? Put another way, are we one nation regardless of race and culture, or are we still proud white, black, coloured and Indian South Africans, united, working together to forge a nation for all that live in it? The central challenge of our democratic project This is not merely a question of semantics. It is the central challenge of our democratic project. The Freedom Charter's enduring promise that 'South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity,' is an aspiration that has yet to be realised. In Singapore, I observed a nation that has answered this question with quiet determination. Rather than erasing cultural identity, it has built systems, policies and symbols that reinforce shared citizenship while celebrating difference. Civic identity takes precedence, but not at the expense of personal heritage. They have found, in many ways, a formula for unity without uniformity. For South Africa, the road is more complex. Our history is more painful, our inequalities more entrenched, our wounds more recent. Yet that does not absolve us from the responsibility to forge a stronger social compact, one in which we weave new cloth rather than simply mending the old quilt. What might that cloth look like? It would be woven from threads of shared values, non-racialism, mutual respect, ubuntu and justice. It would draw strength from the fibres of local languages, customs, histories and rituals, but bind them into a fabric of common purpose. It would move us beyond coexistence into co-creation. Beyond tolerance into solidarity. Importantly, this new cloth does not require us to shed our cultural identities. Rather, it asks that we bring them to the loom, consciously, willingly and in the spirit of building something that transcends each of us individually. In this way, we do not become less coloured, less African, less Indian, less white — we become more South African together. Of course, weaving new fabric requires leadership, trust and a willingness to act with moral courage. It demands that we interrogate our education system, our media, our political discourse and our civic rituals. Difficult questions It means asking difficult questions: Why do so many still feel excluded from the national story? Why do young people in townships and suburbs grow up worlds apart? Why do we default to racial categories rather than civic ones? At the conference, I saw nations grappling with these same questions, each in their own context. Yet the most successful examples, Singapore among them, demonstrated one truth repeatedly: cohesion is not an accidental by-product of democracy. It is a deliberate act of national imagination and political will. For South Africa, the time has come to reimagine our social fabric. The old quilt, stitched together in 1994, was a powerful start. But it has been weathered by time, torn by inequality, frayed by neglect. Now, we must begin to weave anew. Let us not be afraid to dream of a cloth that is stronger, more resilient, more inclusive. A cloth where every thread matters, but where what binds us is even stronger than what differentiates us. A cloth we can call South Africa, not as a collection of patches, but as a single, purposeful, living nation. DM
