Local

Ingrid Jonker’s poem “Die kind (wat doodgeskiet is deur soldate by Nyanga)”, translated as “The child who was shot dead by soldiers at Nyanga”, remains one of the most haunting and powerful literary works to emerge from apartheid-era South Africa. Written in Afrikaans, the language most associated with the apartheid regime, the poem was a radical act of resistance that challenged the moral conscience of the country. Through stark imagery and emotional intensity, Jonker’s poem humanised the suffering of black South Africans during apartheid. 

Afrikaans, the language of the white Afrikaner minority, at the time was used as a tool of ideological dominance. The poet’s choice to write “Die kind is nie dood nie” (“The child is not dead”) in Afrikaans was profoundly symbolic. She turned the language of oppression into a medium of empathy and resistance, using it to bear witness to the suffering of black children under apartheid, most notably, a child killed by the police in the township of Nyanga (Cape Town) whilst protesting. The line, “Die kind is nie dood nie” (“The child is not dead”), functions as both a declaration and a lament. Jonker asserts that the child – a symbol of innocence  – lives on in every act of state violence, in every courtroom that upholds injustice, and in every silent complicity of the powerful.

Die kind (In Afrikaans)

Die kind is nie dood nie
die kind lig sy vuiste teen sy moeder
wat Afrika skreeu skreeu die geur van vryheid en heide
in die lokasies van die omsingelde hart
Die kind lig sy vuiste teen sy vader
in die optog van die generasies
wat Afrika skreeu skreeu die geur
van geregtigheid en bloed
in die strate van sy gewapende trots

Die kind is nie dood nie
nòg by Langa nòg by Nyanga
nòg by Orlando nòg by Sharpville
nòg by die polisiestasie in Philippi
waar hy lê met ‘n koeël deur sy kop

Die kind is die skaduwee van die soldate
op wag met gewere, sarasene en knuppels
die kind is teenwoordig by alle vergaderings en wetgewings
die kind loer deur die vensters van huise en in die harte van moeders
die kind wat net wou speel in die son by Nyanga is orals
die kind wat ‘n man geword het trek deur die ganse Afrika
die kind wat ‘n reus geword het reis deur die hele wereld

sonder ‘n pass

The child (English Translation)

The child is not dead
The child lifts his fists against his mother
Who shouts Afrika ! shouts the breath
Of freedom and the veld
In the locations of the cordoned heart

The child lifts his fists against his father
in the march of the generations
who shouts Afrika ! shout the breath
of righteousness and blood
in the streets of his embattled pride

The child is not dead
not at Langa nor at Nyanga
not at Orlando nor at Sharpeville
nor at the police station at Philippi
where he lies with a bullet through his brain

The child is the dark shadow of the soldiers
on guard with rifles, saracens and batons
the child is present at all assemblies and law-givings
the child peers through the windows of houses and into the hearts of mothers
this child who just wanted to play in the sun at Nyanga is everywhere
the child who became a man treks through all of Africa
the child who became a giant travels through the whole world

without a pass

South Africa faces a serious crime problem, with high rates of murder, gender-based violence, and other violent offenses. As frustration grows, some citizens and politicians have called for the reinstatement of the death penalty as a way to deter crime and restore order. South Africa abolished capital punishment in 1995, when the Constitutional Court ruled it unconstitutional. But should South Africa bring back the death penalty? and would it actually work as a deterrent to crime? Many South Africans feel that the justice system is failing, especially after the recent brutal killings of WITS student Olorato Mongale, and fourteen-year-old high school student, Likona Fose. To some, the death penalty represents justice, closure, and a strong message to potential criminals. Supporters argue that harsh punishments prevent crime. If people fear losing their lives, they may think twice before committing murder or rape. Some view the death penalty as the ultimate punishment, and believe it can act as a powerful deterrent, especially in a country with a high crime rate.

South Africa’s prisons are overcrowded, and keeping violent offenders behind bars for decades is expensive. Some argue that executing the most dangerous criminals would reduce prison costs and make space for rehabilitation of non-violent offenders. There are however arguments against the death penalty, and evidence that deterrence of this nature isn’t effective in dealing with crime or criminals. The South African Constitution protects the right to life. The Constitutional Court ruled in S v Makwanyane (1995) that the death penalty violates the rights to dignity and life. Furthermore, if a person is wrongly convicted, an execution is irreversible – a grave injustice that cannot be undone. Studies from various countries, including the U.S. and others, have shown little to no evidence that the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment in deterring crime. South Africa’s own high murder rate during the apartheid era, when the death penalty was still in use, suggests that execution alone does not stop violent crime. In unequal societies, the justice system can be biased. Poor defendants often can’t afford good lawyers, and racial or political prejudice can influence verdicts. The death penalty could be used unjustly, especially against the vulnerable.

In a 2009 survey of top criminologists by the University of Colorado found that 88% did not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent. In Canada, the homicide rate continued to decline after abolishing the death penalty in 1976. In South Africa, the death penalty did not prevent high murder rates in the 1980s and early 1990s, showing no clear link between capital punishment and reduced crime. The University of Cape Town criminology experts have repeatedly warned that there is no strong link between the death penalty and reduced murder rates. Bringing back the death penalty in South Africa may feel emotionally satisfying to a public plagued by violent crime, but it raises serious legal, moral, and practical concerns. There is no reliable evidence that it works as a deterrent, and it carries the risk of irreversible injustice. Instead, South Africa should focus on strengthening the criminal justice system, improving policing, and conviction rates. Moreover, investing in education and poverty reduction, and ensuring harsh but fair and constitutional penalties for violent crimes. The real solution to crime lies not in state-sanctioned execution, but in building a safer, more just, and more equal society.

Bringing back the death penalty in South Africa may feel emotionally satisfying to a public plagued by violent crime, but it raises serious legal, moral, and practical concerns. There is no reliable evidence that it works as a deterrent, and it carries the risk of irreversible injustice. Instead, South Africa should focus on strengthening the criminal justice system, improving policing, and conviction rates. Moreover, investing in education and poverty reduction, and ensuring harsh but fair and constitutional penalties for violent crimes. The real solution to crime lies not in state-sanctioned execution, but in building a safer, more just, and more equal society.

Elon Musk captured global attention not only for his technological innovations, but also for his polarising public statements. One such statement, his amplification of the false narrative of “white genocide” in South Africa. Another was that the Expropriation of Land Act is unlawful, whilst omitting the context of apartheid’s legacy (Group Areas Act of 1950) and the impact it had on people of colour in South Africa. Musk repeatedly mentioned the “140 race laws” impacting the white population, an obvious lie. This has sparked outrage across South Africa and in the United States, and it has led many in South Africa to question whether the government should place its trust in Musk’s satellite internet project. Elon Musk echoed far-right claims that white South African farmers were being intentionally targeted and killed because they were white, a far-right conspiracy promoted by Afrikaaner lobby group, Afriforum. Afriforum leader Ernst Roets appeared on Fox News, and while he didn’t specifically use the words “White Genocide”, it was inferred. These claims have been widely debunked by crime data, human rights organisations, scholars, and journalists across South Africa.

By amplifying this myth, Musk not only spread misinformation, but also played into a dangerous narrative often used by white nationalist groups in the United States and Europe. For many South Africans, especially black, Indian, and Coloured South Africans who endured centuries of colonial and apartheid violence, this was not just a factual error, but an insult to the country’s complex reality. On the other hand, Starlink offers a compelling technological opportunity. With many rural areas in South Africa still lacking reliable internet, Starlink’s satellite-based system could provide high-speed connectivity where traditional infrastructure has failed. The service could boost education, healthcare, business, and communication in remote areas – key sectors for economic and social upliftment. South Africans have every right to be doubtful of his intentions. Spreading far-right conspiracies and populist rhetoric may have damaged relations, casting doubt on his character altogether. However, Starlink as a technology still holds significant potential to improve lives. The South African government should approach the issue of Starlink and Elon Musk with caution.