Sitting in the ARCO Forum on Feb. 7, I could hardly believe what I was hearing. F.W. de Klerk, the former president of South Africa during the years of apartheid, was delivering a speech advocating the acceptance and recognition of ethnic diversity and the need to include the minority so that all may live peacefully.

De Klerk was the leader of the political party that had declared me, and millions of Blacks, Coloreds, Indians and Chinese, of lesser value because we represented a different culture and ethnicity than the White community. He spoke of the dangers of majority rule, even if gained legitimately through a democratic election. He warned of the prospect of exclusion and the need for minority protection, of the danger of affirmative action becoming a form of discrimination.

These were wise words and I could have accepted them more readily had the speaker not been de Klerk. Somehow, his words seemed shallow and bitter to ingest.

The sudden metamorphosis from a believer of apartheid to a "peacemaker" taints that very word, for I think of "peacemakers" as people filled with grace, character and social conscience. Had de Klerk addressed the fact that those who benefited from apartheid continue to live a relatively privileged life, protected by the wealth and property amassed during the years of apartheid law, while those who suffered under that law continue to live in squalor, destitute and unemployed, I would have been more open to his words.

De Klerk claimed that economic sanctions delayed change in South Africa and that Ronald Reagan's "constructive engagement" policy was a good strategy for South Africa. In comparison, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in his book "No Future Without Forgiveness," had this to say: "Thus the apartheid government benefited hugely from President Ronald Reagan's notorious constructive engagement policy."

De Klerk told us of his "vision" for the Bantustans (remote lands allocated to implement a separate self-governing program for Black ethnic groups to show that apartheid allowed races their "individual freedom") as countries similar to France and Germany. In reality, Bantustans were poverty-stricken regions that provided the apartheid government a legitimate reason to uproot people from their homes.

De Klerk went on to claim that, as Minister of Education, he was a "reformer" of the education system and believed that a separate system of education benefited diverse ethnic groups by teaching schoolchildren in their own language. He quoted statistics of pass rates to prove that only 50 percent of Blacks passed when taught in a language other than their own language.

He neglected to mention the physical conditions at Black schools, the lack of school books and the living conditions of Black homes and of the township environment. I could not help but wonder what benefit was given to me by being forced to learn Afrikaans, a language not of my ethnicity nor from my culture. Perhaps de Klerk should have tried to explain his reasoning on June 16, 1976, when unarmed schoolchildren were shot and killed as they demonstrated against the use of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction.

De Klerk denies ever knowing about security police that committed gross violations of human rights nor of the hit squads and the torture camp of Vlakplaas--a state-funded center for covert operations. He maintains that the men involved in these atrocities, including Colonel Eugene de Kok, who headed up the police death squad, were mavericks who carried out these dastardly deeds of their own volition. Although de Klerk does not dispute the evidence that gross violations of human rights were committed by elements of the security forces, he claims that he cannot be held responsible.

As Andre du Toit, a professor of political studies in South Africa, has written, de Klerk's Cabinet, as late as June 1990, accepted the "need-to-know" principle for security operations, though they also claimed that ministers should accept full accountability for "special projects." Unsurprisingly, this blatant contradiction resulted in some agents keeping their superiors in the dark about certain activities.

In his plea of innocence, de Klerk invoked the name of God to reinforce his claim: "I have a clear conscience with my God." However, it appears that the god of the apartheid government and the god of those that were oppressed by apartheid is as different as Blacks were from Whites in the old South Africa.

De Klerk's denials of responsibility for the atrocities and human rights violations by security forces ultimately under his command must be disputed. We should not forget that he held the highest position as president and, as such, bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of his subordinates, whether he knew about each individual crime or not. De Klerk presents himself as a "reformer" and a peacemaker, but we need to expose him for the person he really is.

Stewart Ting Chong is from South Africa and served on the staff of Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He also served on the Human Rights Committee of South Africa, a non-governmental organization.