You are trying very hard to defend the man. De Klerk is an unrepentant apartheid apologist who probably still thinks apartheid was good for black people. Comparing apartheid killings against black-on-black killings (which were perpetuated by the apartheid government) shows that the apology he gave for apartheid is a half hearted one.You can listen to the part in the discussion, it starts at 22:08.
It was a run-up to the point de Klerk explained that he changed the National Party into an inclusive party. The interviewer, in conclusion, asked de Klerk whether he agreed with the UN's stance that Apartheid was a crime against humanity (which is genocide under their wartime and peacetime acts). De Klerk argued that Apartheid wasn't a crime, not a genocide. This quote is selectively applied,
which is missing the basis on which the response was made. He also apologised to the interviewer, which is a black person, and also apologised as per the above. He also elaborated that to reduce black-on-black violence they established the Coldstone Commission, none which is mentioned by the media other than a small snip in a 25min long interview.
Say de Klerk did agree with the UN, then he would have agreed that Apartheid was a genocide.
It's scary how many apartheid apologists are in our midst, you are one of them. Apartheid can be compared genocide. A government that went to war with the people, based on their skin colour.