The Lens: Trump’s ‘white genocide’ comments risk damaging US-South Africa relations

In the recent interactions between US President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, it is clear that Trump should have approached his concerns about “white genocide” more delicately.

A video is insufficient evidence to support what could be considered an outrageous claim. He should have taken the time to conduct thorough research before hastily discussing such a sensitive subject. The visit was intended to repair relationships rather than delve into divisive matters.

Trump’s abrupt handling of the situation risked further damaging diplomatic relations and was an unstrategic move. In contrast, I believe Ramaphosa responded with dignity and grace.

He addressed Trump’s comments thoughtfully, employing logical reasoning, and kept the door open for future communication by expressing his willingness to meet again.

Ramaphosa was diplomatic and measured in his response, refraining from drawing any definitive conclusions while maintaining a friendly stance towards Trump.

He did not passively accept any criticism against South Africa but calmly defended his country’s position.

Ramaphosa’s composed response stands in stark contrast to Trump’s irrational comments.

What was initially meant to be a visit focused on mending relations between South Africa and the US may now have complicated them, potentially leading to significant consequences in the future. Trump’s rash and unfounded remarks could hinder South Africa’s willingness to engage with the US going forward, thereby limiting potential partnerships.

To repair this relationship, Trump needs to approach such sensitive matters more carefully and discreetly if he wishes to foster a constructive dialogue in the future.

Read up on this issue in last week’s The Lens

A proposal to raise the retirement age for Malaysian civil servants from 60 to 65 has drawn intense public opposition. Critics warn it would extend financial strain for low-income workers and limit job opportunities for young people.

The suggestion, floated by Law Minister Azalina Othman Said, has reignited debate over how Malaysia should prepare for a rapidly ageing population and shrinking workforce. Azalina argued that the move would allow older workers to remain productive and help boost their pension savings.

“Maybe the government should look at 65 years as the new retirement age because many [who reach] 60 are still young, and the proportion of 60-year-olds in the population is growing,” she said.

In Malaysia, the number of citizens aged 65 and above is expected to nearly double from 8 per cent today to 14 per cent by 2043. At the same time, the working-age population has been shrinking since 2020.

Azalina’s remarks drew criticism from citizens, who said that, unlike in wealthier European countries, most Malaysians grow old before they grow rich – and that an extra five years in low-paid work would do little to benefit those who wanted to retire.

However, economist Aimi Zulhazmi suggested a tiered approach, where lower-income earners could retire at 65, while those with higher incomes leave the workforce at 60.

That prospect has raised concern among younger workers, who argue that being healthy and willing to work does not necessarily mean older colleagues are well-equipped to keep up in a rapidly evolving workplace.

Some cited resistance to adopting new technologies and software, with older employees often deferring tasks to younger colleagues.

While Malaysia’s overall unemployment rate is a low 3 per cent, youth unemployment remains significantly higher – hovering around 10 per cent, according to the World Bank.

• Will increasing the retirement age for civil servants ultimately benefit or harm the population of Malaysia?

• Are there alternative solutions to enhance pension savings or better prepare for retirement?