The first signs that young voters might have been crucial in the outcome of last Friday’s general election came early on Saturday morning as the results were still sinking in.

Asked at the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) press conference if the ruling party had lost the youth vote, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said young people have “very significantly different life aspirations and priorities”. He had just seen a nearly nine-point vote swing against his party, with a record 10 opposition candidates winning seats in Parliament.

From analysts to politicians, many have since portrayed the swing against the PAP – almost every win came with a reduced share of the vote – as an indication of the need to better incorporate younger perspectives.

Former MP Inderjit Singh, in a Facebook post on Sunday, said millennials were the group who most likely voted against the PAP. He estimated that more than half of young voters had cast their ballot for the opposition.

A day earlier, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, touching on Singapore’s approach to race relations, said a new framework might be needed to take into account “how (young) people feel that there’s a different way of discussing these things beyond the traditional”.

Yet, a poll conducted by The Straits Times in February found little hint of young voters turning away from the ruling party in the months leading up to the election, suggesting that the swing against the PAP in this age group might have been caused by events closer to Polling Day.

Voting patterns among a sample size of 400 first-time voters in February were somewhat similar to how their parents may vote. Between February and March, the poll found that bread-and-butter concerns – the cost of living, as well as job and housing prospects – dominated respondents’ list of worries.

More tellingly, 36.5 per cent of them said they were inclined to vote for the PAP, more than double the 15.5 per cent who said they were leaning towards the opposition; about half were undecided.

A sample of the same voters were contacted again after Polling Day and many said they had changed their minds, and backed the opposition.

Their reasons included specific incidents that occurred during the hustings and a comparison of party manifestos, which led them to rethink what they valued and hoped to see in Singapore’s future. Most said they were not voting opposition for opposition’s sake.

Marketing executive Callista Khoo, a 22-year-old first-time voter, ended up voting for the Workers’ Party (WP) in Marine Parade GRC despite her admiration for Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, who anchors the PAP team there.

EVEN IF IT’S NOT YOUR REALITY…

Singaporeans need to realise that just because this is not your reality, doesn’t mean that it isn’t someone else’s lived reality. We really should get out of our own shells and realise that there are so many Singaporeans out there who are living on the sidelines, and we need to start paying more attention to these vulnerable individuals in our communities.

COMMUNICATIONS STUDENT ANNABELLE LIM, 24, who will be graduating from university this year. She is concerned about job prospects as the pursuit of her dream job – working in the arts – has been derailed by the Covid-19 pandemic but she feels economic policies should not come at the expense of issues like income inequality and race and gender discrimination.

VALUING DIVERSITY IN LEGISLATURE

Consumption of alternative media from a young age and a rather developed sense of social consciousness have empowered young voters, have led us to question the status quo and value diversity in the legislature… Income inequality and ageism in the workplace are still very pertinent issues. More can be done to ensure that the elderly do not have to do back-breaking work in their later years. This has carry-on effects for my generation as well, who would soon grow up to be the sandwich generation. I would like to see candidates/parties looking into and tackling these problems more proactively.

LAW STUDENT GWENDOLYN OH, 22.

CLIMATE CHANGE AN EXISTENTIAL PROBLEM

For me, climate change right now supersedes the issue of jobs. Jobs are very important and we should be preparing for that, but climate change is an existential problem.

PUBLIC RELATIONS TRAINEE YOGESH TULSI, 25.

“I respect the way Mr Tan articulates his thoughts and interacts with people. Then I saw the WP candidate from my GRC recite a pantun,” she said, referring to WP candidate Fadli Fawzi’s speech on Nomination Day, in which he recited a Malay poem calling on his audience to “light the fires in your will”.

She respected his nod to traditional Malay poetry as she felt there was a heavy emphasis on Chinese values in society here.

Ms Khoo then found Mr Fadli’s Twitter account and was impressed by the newcomer’s views and professionalism. She said: “I realised I needed to give WP my vote because they deserve a chance for more voices in Parliament.

“How else will voters make an informed decision about credibility if the opposition lacks the equivalent of the PAP’s opportunities and platforms to prove themselves?”

Ms Zhang Feng Fang, a politics and economics undergraduate, said she was quite frustrated during the nine days of campaigning as many in her circle had swung towards the opposition. The PAP supporter said: “The opposition had a much better social media game but I also think a lot of youth had their own echo chambers for opposition online.”

Ms Zhang, 22, said she did not make any public comments online in support of the PAP because she feared that she would be seen as not supportive of her friends from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community.

In the end, she voted for the team helmed by Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC when her parents told her not to “bite the hand that feeds you”.

For East Coast GRC resident Gerald Sim, 23, several events during the campaign pushed him towards the opposition.

He cited the verbal slip-up by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat during his Nomination Day speech as one thing which raised doubts about whether he should be voting for the PAP leader.

The intern at a local museum also said he was put off by the PAP’s demand on July 6 that the WP state its position on Sengkang GRC candidate Raeesah Khan’s Facebook posts. Ms Raeesah is now under investigation for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race.

The incident, he said, was “a show of political mudslinging”.

“It undermines my trust in the incumbent party even more when it resorts to delivering low blows by blowing out of proportion comments made by Ms Raeesah as a private citizen,” he added.

More than 6,000 like-minded individuals joined a Facebook group called “We Stand Behind Raeesah!”, while an online petition made the rounds, saying: “Let Raeesah Khan campaign in peace. Conduct any investigations after the elections.” It garnered more than 19,000 signatures before Polling Day.

Young voters and observers believe the PAP’s targeting of Ms Raeesah, 26, who has been an activist for the rights of the marginalised since she was 17, backfired on the party for its perceived high-handedness.

Mr G. Kiran, 25, who recently graduated from the Singapore Management University’s law faculty, said: “Some young voters might have empathised with the difficult position Ms Raeesah was caught in because of the similarity in age, and the nature of social media, which has provided platforms for users to pen brief and candid thoughts.

“Younger people may have been concerned about freedom of speech and expression when the police said they were investigating her over her alleged online comments.”

Others pointed out that systemic inequalities do exist in the country and that Ms Raeesah was courageous to point them out.

Apart from push factors, there were also pull factors for younger Singaporeans to vote opposition. These included the WP’s proposals to tighten employment pass approvals and lower the age from 35 to 28 for singles to apply for Build-to-Order Housing Board flats.

Undergraduate Martyn Danial, 25, a Choa Chu Kang resident, said he was attracted to the WP’s policies, although it did not contest in his GRC. He said: “The WP’s manifesto resonated with me because it would have directly affected those around my age group who are about to join the workforce.”

For Mr Sim, it was the tone of the WP team’s “simple message of kindness”, which he said gelled with his values. “I don’t want to be extremely successful and rich while down the ladder, there are people who have difficulty putting food on the table.”

CHOOSING BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ISSUES

Although the Elections Department does not release figures for the number of first-time voters, there were 229,900 Singapore citizens aged 20 to 24 as of June last year, according to the Government’s Population in Brief report.

They likely reached the voting age between the 2015 election and this one, making up nearly 10 per cent of the 2.65 million Singaporeans eligible to vote this election.

WP chairman Sylvia Lim, in a recent interview with Bloomberg news agency, weighed in on whether the youth vote was a key factor in the swing towards the opposition.

She said that although in Sengkang, the 26 to 44 age range of the WP team matched the profile of voters there and likely contributed to her party’s win in the GRC, “nationwide, I’m not able to say right now whether the younger voters tipped the balance overall”.

All voters, young or old, will make their own calculations, she added.

“I don’t think they will, in general, vote just as a protest, but they will also look at what is at stake, who is providing the alternative and whether they think they can accept that person as their MP,” said Ms Lim.

Young voters who spoke to The Straits Times echoed this view. Many of them said their decision was never a toss-up only between who they thought could provide “jobs, jobs, jobs” – a PAP election slogan popularised by Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan during a televised debate – and which party could facilitate other sociopolitical goals like greater equality.

Rather, they rejected the idea that they had to choose between economic issues and issues like social inequality, and instead, leaned towards candidates from whichever party that had plans for both areas.

Public relations trainee Yogesh Tulsi, 25, said he is anxious about jobs and getting Singapore out of its economic slump but thinks climate crisis and civil liberties are also, if not more, pressing concerns.

“Climate change is an existential problem that I want to see a lot more planning for,” he said.

For some millennials, the Government’s largely successful handling of the Covid-19 pandemic was not enough to guarantee their votes.

Ms Nur Dyana Abu Bakar, 25, who works in the hard-hit aviation sector, said the Government has been largely efficient in handling the Covid-19 outbreak – and is glad to hear friends overseas praise Singapore for it. But issues such as the pace of development, the rising cost of living and transparency of government data are her top priorities.

She said: “We should be able to know how much of taxpayers’ money is going where, or what the Government is focusing on. I don’t mind higher taxes if I know that the money is going towards something good for Singapore.”

However, there are young voters who agree with the PAP’s focus on economic policies. Law undergraduate Clement Lim, 24, said he supported the ruling party’s emphasis on jobs and skills upgrading because it is “about encouraging people to be independent and not depend on government handouts”.

The PAP Youth Wing member, who volunteers in Jurong GRC, added that the PAP still has many “MPs and leaders who genuinely care about society and its people”.

Mr Lim said: “I often see MPs who go the extra mile to ensure that the needs of their residents are taken care of. Regular dialogue sessions are held where ministers try to understand societal concerns, and explain the Government’s approach to dealing with them.”

For him, the election results meant that the PAP should rethink its strategy for engaging younger voters, rather than embark on a directional overhaul.

SOCIAL MEDIA APPEAL

With restrictions in place due to the coronavirus pandemic, this election took place largely online – a milieu in which digital natives like millennials are very much at home.

The social media presence of candidates acquired greater weight, and how eloquent and presentable they were played a greater role. The personalities of individual candidates also came under more scrutiny than they would have in past hustings.

Several PAP politicians, such as Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, 51, have earned plaudits for their online outreach efforts.

Mr Tan became a local Twitter sensation earlier this year for responding or “clapping back” at a netizen who confused him with Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing. The netizen said: “Hello sir! I stan!” Mr Tan replied: “Hello. I Tan.” Stan is slang for an overzealous fan.

Public relations and events executive Joel Lim, 27, said it was important for candidates to reach out to young voters online. He said: “A large majority of (first-time voters) are active users of digital platforms, which are also where they have their discussions with their peers and, more importantly, obtain information.”

Mr Lim posted bite-size political analyses on his Instagram account and gained more than 11,000 new followers during the election campaign. The first episode of his series, called Political Prude, drew more than 10,000 views.

Opposition candidates also performed well.

Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chairman Paul Tambyah, an infectious diseases expert, was among those whose credentials were lauded on social media by young voters, who felt opposition candidates like him were equal in calibre to those fielded by the PAP.

Others, like Progress Singapore Party (PSP) chief Tan Cheng Bock, got young assistants to help him better tap the online psyche of millennials. The 80-year-old experimented with millennial and Gen Z slang such as “hypebeast” – a person in tune with the latest trends – and became an unlikely Instagram hit for his “hypebeast ah gong” persona.

A day before Cooling-off Day, SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan mixed jokes with appeals for more democratic rights in an interview with online personality Preeti Nair, better known as Preetipls. The video was widely circulated.

Still, it is not clear how much candidates’ social media appeal translated into votes – Prof Tambyah, Dr Chee and Dr Tan all lost by narrow margins.

Also, young voters said keeping an online presence was not everything, and that on-the-ground efforts mattered.

MacPherson resident Soh Jun Ming, 27, said his MP Tin Pei Ling is popular for the effort she takes to be present on the ground.

He said: “We occasionally see her jogging around the neighbourhood to greet some of the residents, and she has also impacted the lives of several of my neighbours, especially during this trying period.”

The financial consultant added: “Some of my neighbours also said it is hard to vote for opposition members if we don’t see them contributing to the neighbourhood.”

Ms Tin, 36, romped home to victory for the second time in the single seat, sweeping up 71.74 per cent of the votes in a contest against the People’s Power Party secretary-general Goh Meng Seng.

National University of Singapore sociologist Tan Ern Ser said of the youth vote: “Whether or not they constitute a significant proportion of voters, their votes are important – more so if there’s a close contest.”

In West Coast GRC, the PSP lost to the PAP by just 3.4 points. If more credible opposition candidates jump into the fray, the gap may continue to narrow, and this election could be a hint of what is to come.

• Additional reporting by Olivia Ho and Clara Chong

With the current crisis and upheaval in our lives, there are many “good excuses” to exceed personal limits you set for yourself on drinking, using drugs, or any other indulgent and possibly addictive behaviors. The same can be said about diets and emotional or binge eating . If you’ve set limits for yourself, your success will depend in part upon your ability to resist “ relapse self-talk ” that tempts you to abandon your goals . You’ll face the same challenging self-talk you encountered pre-pandemic but now amplified by current circumstances that can be used to justify exceeding your limits.

Below are six categories of relapse self-talk that you might encounter and tips on how to fight back. Your challenge is to identify your own relapse self-talk, analyze its strategy to undermine success, and counter with powerful self-talk that keeps you on track.

1. Mindless Permission (Don’t Think)

• “Go ahead, drink (smoke, play video games, binge eat, gamble).”
• “You’ll feel good.”
• “It’s party time.”

This self-talk is a tactic of the “right now” brain that wants whatever pleasure is available in the moment, without regard to your “smart brain” that actually thinks about the consequences. It gives you permission to overstep your limits. You could summarize its message as “Don’t think.”

Mindless permission sneaks up on you and diminishes your resolve. To avoid this pitfall, you must remain vigilant and actively watch for it. You might find that giving it a name helps. I call it the green light trick. It says: “Go ahead.” But, you really need to counterpunch by saying: “No. Stop! Think.” Then, you ponder the questions:

• Why am I saying I should go ahead?
• What justifies going against my wise and thoughtful decision to abstain (or stay within my own pre-set limits)?

You can protect yourself from mindless permission by slowing things down (Stop) and mindful awareness (Think). Here’s an example of prudent and thoughtful self-talk:

“Hey, I don’t need any mindless encouragement to do something that would be harmful to me. I’m going to resist temptation and stick with my goals because they are important to me. I’d rather bask in the glory of my current success than mindlessly cave in to urges.”

2. Reward Yourself (Indulge)

• “You deserve it.”
• “You’ve earned it.”
• “It’s time to celebrate your success.”

This self-talk implies that drug use (or other potentially problematic behaviors) in excess of your own limits is a reward, something positive to which you are entitled. You’ve weathered a storm, responded very well to difficult circumstances, and now deserve a reward for your effort. That’s all well and fine. But then the issue becomes: What is an appropriate reward? Is a giant milkshake the appropriate reward for eating a salad? Is a six-pack of beer the proper reward for a week of abstinence from alcohol ?

Surely you’re not respecting your own limits when you reward restraint from drinking (or drugging, or binge eating, or whatever) with permission to indulge in exactly what you previously decided not to do.

Here’s an example of self-talk that acknowledges your success, yet respects your decisions:

“Yes I deserve a reward, but not by doing something that breaks my own rules. I’m not going to fall into that trap. I’ll give myself a different type of reward and keep focusing on my long-term goal. There’s lots of work ahead.”

3. “I’m Here for You” (Your Friend)

• “Eat these donuts. You’ll feel better.”
• “Smoke this joint. It’ll calm you down.”
• “Keep gaming. It’ll take your mind off things.”

This self-talk presents itself as your pal, a problem-solving partner, here to help you through tough times. It sounds like a caring and kind offer of relief in response to stress and troubles. Sometimes, it even comes across as a necessity, as in “You know you need it.”

This is tricky because you certainly would like to find relief from your distress. But this relapse self-talk offers relief by urging you to do something you have previously decided not to do. It undermines your success. It’s not what a good friend would recommend. You don’t benefit from it and certainly don’t need it.

In anticipation of this self-talk, it’s important to think about and list all the resources you have at your disposal to get relief – ways to distract yourself, have fun, get support, or engage in meaningful activities, etc. – without resorting to behavior that violates a standard you set for yourself. Then, you can keep your list handy.

Here’s an example of self-talk that stands up to this “pal” who is “here for you” and shows how to be a true friend to yourself:

“No, you’re not really here for me. Sure it would be nice to get some relief, but not at the cost of undermining my own thoughtful decisions. You underestimate my resourcefulness. You’re not my pal. I can weather the storm, and I can also find other ways to get relief.”

4. The Exception (Bad Today, but Good Tomorrow)

• “Tomorrow I’ll be back on the wagon.”
• “Tomorrow I’ll eat healthy.”
• “Tomorrow I’ll abstain from gaming.”

This self-talk is about being dishonest to yourself by making an exception. It gives you permission to indulge yourself right now and temporarily “suspend” any limits you have set. It’s based on the premise (bogus assumption/wishful thinking) that your “future self” guiding your behavior tomorrow will be different from your “present self.” Thing is, you’ll be the same person tomorrow. You’re just kicking the can down the road, with one exception after another.

Here’s an example of “no exception” self-talk:

“You can’t fool me with promises about tomorrow. That’s not cutting myself slack. That’s jumping ship. It’s nonsense and a formula for failure. I’m not making exceptions. I’m sticking with my decision right now, today! I am going to succeed.”

5. You Can’t (Powerless)

• “You have no control.”
• “There’s no point in trying. You’re hooked.”
• “Admit it. You can’t do it.”

This self-talk exploits a sense of powerlessness; the idea that you lack control over your own behavior. It asserts that your desires and impulses overwhelm your ability to control yourself. While putting you down as weak, this self-talk conveniently absolves you of any responsibility because, after all, there’s nothing you can do about it.

Here’s an example of “Yes, I can” self-talk that recognizes your own personal power:

“You underestimate me. I have much more resolve, power, and inner strength than you think I have. I absolutely am capable of resisting this temptation. I, and I alone, have the power to stick with my decision and I fully intend to do so.”

6. Circumstances Justify It (Not My Fault)

• “Poor you. Look at all that’s going on.”
• “Don’t deny yourself now, when you need it most.”
• “You’re bored. There’s nothing else to do.”

This self-talk should definitely be expected during a time of crisis. It exploits vulnerability and offers the perfect cover story: “It’s not you. It’s the circumstances.” You made your decision to establish limits for yourself without anticipating the current circumstances, o your decision no longer holds.

This is perhaps the most reasonable relapse self-talk. Things have changed. Stress is up. Outlets for pleasure have been diminished. So, maybe it is time to review why you set your limits (a wise thing to do regardless of circumstances). You can determine if you are using the current situation as an excuse to bail out or whether you are thoughtfully abandoning your plan and making a new one. If you conclude it’s still in your interest to abstain or abide by limits you set for yourself, then you’ll need supportive self-talk that says so:

“My decision is important to me. I gave up the immediate benefits of alcohol (or a drug or a particular behavior) in order to have a better life. That is still what I value more than immediate pleasure or relief from pain. So, I must stick with my limits, even now under difficult circumstances.”

Epilogue: Sink or Swim

As you can see, relapse self-talk is out to get you and now has the perfect cover with COVID-19 . But, you don’t have to fall for it. You can take your power, resist temptation, and stay within the bounds of the limits you have set for yourself.

Pat Magee, a top aide to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, resigned Thursday as a second sexual harassment complaint against him came to light alleging that he assigned women in his office to handle less serious cases that he deemed “good for women.”

The woman who wrote the complaint said she and other women in the office styled themselves to avoid unwelcome attention from Magee, and that Magee tried to coach male employees on “how to be more manly.” As The Advocate was seeking comment from Magee about the second complaint, he announced that he was resigning from his post as head of the criminal division at the Attorney General’s Office, effective at 5 p.m.

“Due to recent false and unjust allegations against me and after an exhaustive and gut-wrenching investigation, which concluded my conduct did not rise to the level of sexual harassment, I have made this personal and very difficult decision,” Magee said in a statement. “Let me be very clear, I did not commit — nor do I condone — sexual harassment in the workplace, or anywhere.”

The new complaint against Magee came from a lawyer who left her job at the Attorney General’s Office in 2019, after less than two years working under Magee’s reign as the head of Landry’s criminal division. She filed a letter with the office Tuesday that said Magee created a hostile climate for everyone who worked in his office because of his persistent sexual harassment.

Magee’s resignation and her complaint both came within a week after 19th Judicial District Judge Tim Kelley ordered Landry to release a previous complaint about Magee to the public. The Attorney General’s Office tried to keep the document under seal, and Landry took the extraordinary step of suing the Advocate reporter who requested a copy of it, but Kelley last week ordered its release.

That complaint also described multiple instances of Magee harassing his employees. The person who wrote the first complaint said Magee suggested that one attorney work on a case “because male jurors would want to have sex with her,” and that Magee declined to promote another female attorney because her good looks made him unsure if he “would be able to control himself sexually.”

That initial complaint prompted the Attorney General’s Office to hire attorney Vicki Crochet at the law firm Taylor Porter to investigate. Crochet’s probe, concluded in January, found that Magee’s actions, while improper, did not rise to the level of sexual harassment and that Magee’s comments were “joking in nature.” Magee was suspended for 38 days, docked $20,559 in pay and ordered to attend training sessions on emotional intelligence.

But the complaint about Magee filed this week raised new concerns about how thoroughly the original complaints were investigated, in addition to lodging several new allegations.

“The findings of your investigation into Director Magee appear to conclude that all of the allegations in the complaint were private, one-off comments,” she wrote. “This could not be further from the truth.”

She wrote that nobody on the receiving end of the alleged inappropriate comments from Magee considered them a joke.

“I certainly didn’t think that the comments made to me about jobs that were appropriate for women was a joke, that was confirmed to me by the types of jobs I was able to pursue,” she said.

The attorney shared a copy of her complaint with this newspaper on the condition that her name not be published. The newspaper, which generally does not publish the names of potential victims and witnesses without their consent, agreed. The attorney who wrote the new complaint said she had also witnessed multiple accounts described in the initial complaint.

She said the Attorney General’s Office on Wednesday confirmed that it had received the new complaint and promised the information in it would be reviewed. She provided a copy of that email to The Advocate.

After months of staying quiet about the allegations against him, Magee defended himself on Thursday.

Magee said it had been an honor to be the first Black man to serve as director of the AG’s criminal division. A former assistant district attorney for the 15th Judicial District court in Lafayette under longtime former District Attorney Mike Harson, Magee has also served as a litigation attorney and served in the Louisiana National Guard.

“Throughout my entire career,” he wrote, “my prosecutorial philosophy has been to lead with compassion when appropriate and be aggressive in dispensing justice to those responsible when necessary.”

A spokesperson for the attorney general did not return messages on Thursday.

The attorney wrote in her complaint that before Magee became the director of the office’s Department of Justice, the previous director, Brandon Fremin, had encouraged younger prosecutors to get experience in a variety of cases. That changed, she wrote, once Magee took over.

She said that Magee found tasks like writing briefs and researching cases to be inferior to trial work, and that Magee farmed out those tasks to women in the office, calling the work “good for females.” She said that Magee did not learn her name for months, instead calling her a “chick.”

She described Magee “having an odd fascination with the differences between males and females and their abilities to perform certain tasks.” She said he often asked women to handle cases like traffic tickets, while men were often assigned to handle more serious crimes.

“I felt like my wings were clipped, so to speak,” she said. “I was very limited in what I was going to be able to experience and learn, to move up in the office.”

She submitted a resignation letter in 2018, and when she told Magee about the type of work she would be doing at her new job, she said Magee told her that the job duties were “suitable for females.” But she ended up deciding to stay at the Attorney General’s Office job because several co-workers told her they thought Magee would leave his position once Landry started his second term in office. Magee, however, stayed, and she said the climate grew worse.

At a post-work happy hour, she wrote that Magee “put his hand on my leg in an overly familiar manner.” She reported it to a supervisor, who encouraged her to go to HR.

“After much consideration, I declined to report the incident because I believed that nothing would be done, the incident would be brushed off and that I would suffer adverse consequences if my reporting was revealed to Director Magee,” she wrote.

Magee often described his love of “alpha females,” and asked her if she was an “alpha female,” she alleged. He also continually bragged of his close relationship with Landry and reminded employees frequently of their unclassified work status, which gave Magee the ability to fire them at any time, she said.

She said women in the office frequently discussed with one another that they felt uncomfortable wearing makeup, dresses, skirts and other feminine attire out of fear that Magee would find them attractive and make sexualized comments about them, she said.

She wrote that she was uncomfortable enough around Magee that when she booked a hotel room in Monroe for a case she was working on there and then found out that Magee booked a room at the same hotel, she changed the timing of her arrival to ensure she would not run into him in the lobby.

“This is the course of action that I chose in order to avoid an awkward and likely inappropriate encounter, and I made the drive to Monroe from Baton Rouge late at night,” she wrote in her complaint. “These types of conversations, concerns and fears are not normal or acceptable in a workplace.”

She also wrote that Magee frequently spoke of having numerous “baby mommas,” and shared intimate details of one relationship at a Christmas party when “everyone present was clearly uncomfortable.” She said that she also overheard Magee coaching male employees on “how to be more manly.”

The woman said that she feared reporting Magee to HR because she worried that her complaints would not be taken seriously. The lack of findings of sexual harassment in the recent investigation into Magee reinforced those concerns; she noted that sexual harassment can be more than a quid pro quo — it can also be the creation of a hostile work environment.

She encouraged the Attorney General’s Office to commission a new investigation and to interview all current and former employees of Magee. Of the Taylor Porter probe, she wrote: “It is obvious that the investigation was not thorough, and that little to no effort was made to contact current or former employees to verify the allegations or share additional experiences or concerns.”

She concluded by saying she wasn’t motivated by any specific ill will toward Magee, but added that his behavior was harming the office and those who work there.

“I have no personal vendetta or hatred towards Director Magee and I sincerely hope that his emotional intelligence trainings will be effective,” she wrote. “However, as a victim of the toxic and hostile environment I can only have sympathy for those who still suffer under his directorship.”

By Francis Ewherido

The field of counselling is a minefield; unless you navigate with care, you can easily step on mines. A friend walked up to me at a wedding reception. He directed my attention to the wife of a mutual friend who has piled on weight. “Does acting in love not include staying attractive to your spouse,” he asked.

If he had not brought our mutual friend’s wife into the matter, I would have said yes. But in this case, I didn’t want to be quoted, so I stayed mute. I didn’t know why the weight of the wife of our mutual friend would be of concern to him. May be the husband complained to him.

Today’s topic is inspired by Romans 14:15 – “If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.” The context in which Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans is different, but can we find some correlation here?

I had a long discussion with someone very close to me recently. The wife had grown morbidly obese and unattractive. He has tried to make the wife see reasons with him and shed weight, rather she is sinking deeper into obesity. He does not find her sexually appealing anymore and so went out to get another woman. By the way, he is a traditional chief and a polygamist, so the rule of one-man-one-wife does not bind him. The issue is did the wife act in love when she ignored the husband’s pleas?

In another case, a young man was suffering from erectile dysfunction due to excessive consumption of alcohol and smoking. He could no longer perform his conjugal duties. The wife nudged him to quit his destructive habits and get help, but he refused. She refused to die in silence and brought the matter before family and close friends. Instead of the young man to deal with the issue on ground, he was boasting about his monster dick, he inherited from his father, to boost his ego.

Of what use is a monster dick that cannot rise up to the occasion? Of what use is a toothless bulldog? Is an agile squirrel not more useful than a dead lion? Since the incident I have been wondering about something a young girl I shared a taxi ride with long ago told her friend: “if you see the boy prick eh, na hammer, e big like im papa own?” Could she be referring to this young man and his father?

Anyway, the young man is lucky that his wife is patient with him. Some wives would simply go and get satisfaction elsewhere. Even some of those who have a healthy sex life with their husbands still want to sample that handsome male colleague in the office or that witty customer who always makes her laugh anytime he comes around, not to talk of those who are sex-starved. Welcome to our liberal world without boundaries.

The issue of acting in love or not acting in love is a delicate one in marriage. There are some criteria I apply. One, when you marry, you marry the good, the bad and the ugly. It is a complete package. As I wrote in my book, Life Lessons from Mudipapa, ”When you marry, you marry wholesale not retail, that is, you marry the person with his/her strengths and weaknesses, successes and failings; the good, the bad and the ugly; his/her past, present and future.

You must be ready to put up with your potential spouse’s failings, shortcomings and weaknesses for the rest of your life. If you are not ready to do this, the relationship (courtship) must end there and then. You should not ever deceive or fool yourself into believing that he/she will change for the better.” The implication is that if your spouse was obese when you met him/her and you are now nagging him/her to shed weight, you are the one who is not acting in love. Agreed obesity is unhealthy, but you have no right to make issues out of it because na so you see am, open your eyes marry am. But if you were upfront that you do not want an obsess spouse, he/she has an obligation to put his/her weight in check.

Another criterion I use is that before you come to equity, your hands must be clean. If you are guilty of what you want your spouse to change or stop, you must remove the log from your eyes before you tell your spouse or help him/her to remove the speck from his/her own eyes. The chief we mentioned earlier is very trim and fit, so you cannot fault him for telling his wife to shed weight.

It is for the same reason of equity that the issue of weight cannot come up in my marriage. When we got married, both of us were very trim. Over the years both of us have added some weight, not obese. We are both conscious of it and are working on it. In 2018, I dropped over six kilograms after spending a month in the United States. I achieved it mainly with change in diet and little exercise. A year after returning to Nigeria, I not only regained the weight, but added five extra kilograms. It is a continuous battle to shed weight and I am acquiring new arsenal to win the war. Beyond not having the moral grounds, I have no issues with my wife’s weight. She, on her own, opted to try and “go back to my former self.”

Sometimes determining which spouse is not acting in love is like six and half a dozen. A friend joined a religious group where female members and wives of male members are forbidden from wearing trousers or shorts. He asked the wife to stop putting on trousers, but she refused. The issue was straining their marriage. I called my friend and reminded him that the wife was putting on trousers during their courtship and I could not remember him making an issue out of it.

Now that the football match (marriage) has started, he cannot shift the goal post. He should not allow the rules of his religious group to destroy his marriage. “Please let her be,” I admonished him. He listened and relented. But someone can also argue that since her wearing of trousers was causing her husband distress, she should have acted in love and given up wearing of trousers.

Beyond the above, there are other issues in marriage that are putting off one spouse. The other spouse should act in love by making adjustment. Hygiene is one of them. There are spouses who dread their other half kissing them because of perennial bad breath. In all fairness, the spouse with the bad breath might not even know. The other half should lovingly bring up the issue, while the one with bad breath should improve on his oral hygiene or see the dentist or ENT doctor, as the case might be.  Body odour is another one, so is genital odour. Act in love, keep everywhere fresh and clean.