Some random topics to think about these few weeks

Probably due to my living condition (staying alone), I can allocate time to think about various things in church, society and family. This thing, if done in moderation, is a good thing as long as you do not try to be too strict or judgmental in order to be perfect.

These viewpoints can be right and wrong and I am open about it. However, I do not presuppose these things are true in the beginning and find some arguments to rationalize it and hence in general I think these viewpoints are thoughtful. I decided to share some of my insights for the readers here.

1) Most of the theological arguments are just dispute about definition of keywords

In the church seminar I attended last week, they talked about predestination and human’s  free will, whether there is any contradiction between these two concepts and to address some of difficult questions to this topic. After I watched the seminar, I start to think that if we cannot even agree to the basic keywords we use such as ‘responsible’, ‘plan’, ‘permit’ ‘freedom’, and so on, it is useless to attend such metaphysical debate. I am thinking that probably the only reasons why theologians are interested in these topics is that they can publish a lot of books with their names on it and become famous speaker on the community of believers.

Take for example the classical question: Is God omnipotent? Well, that also depends on what is your definition of omnipotent. God is not omnipotent (able to do all things) if you include all things such as lying and sadistically torture believers as it contradicts His character.

We can similarly apply the same thing to word ‘responsibility’. Is God responsible for the damnation of unbeliever as He is allegedly omniscience but still creating them, even when He foreknew that they will rebel against Him? We can play around with definition ‘responsibility’. The unbeliever will still be ‘responsible’ because they are ‘freely’ choose to sin. They are ‘free’ to choose only sin. Of course, the definition of ‘freedom’ here contradicts our common standard definition of freedom. Can freedom be properly called freedom if it only has one choice?

I believe you can get my point. I have retired to this debate because it is not edifying nor building fellowship with fellow believers.

2) The inherent injustice in modern financial system

After the seminar, I and my friend went together for dinner and we discussed again about the usury and its application in modern financial system. He proposed that people are mainly borrowing money not for daily living but for start-up business which can reasonably generate profit and hence interest is acceptable in this case.

My main objection is because in this system, no matter for what purpose the money is borrowed, the lender carries virtually no risk whereas the borrower carries all risks. When the borrower failed, the lender has the collateral and do not suffer loss. When the borrower succeed, the lender also take part of his profit. I view the transaction where only one party is guaranteed to obtain profit inherently exploitative and unjust, in contrast to normal trade transactions (buying goods and services) which is mutually beneficial to both parties.

Of course, this extends to other financial schemes as well like gambling, insurance and multi-level marketing. In those schemes, one party is guaranteed profit whereas all others may get profit or loss. This also includes rent to goods such as housing, vehicle, etc. The landlord will always receive rent even if the tenant is unemployed or out of business and rent will continue to rise even if the wage is not.

Due to this principle, I have previously rejected any job offers from financial institutions (banks) and also would not accept spouse who is working in financial sector unless she quit her job.

3) Income is largely determined by economic sector and not individual capability, job difficulty or gender

I have read some articles such as this where it said now a lot of women out-earn their husbands and it affects dynamics of the relationship in the family. The traditional assumption that husband should be head of the household because of paycheck seems no longer valid. The article suggested that this thing can cause strain on relationship.

I would suggest that we approach this problem with different perspective. Worldly people will always translate the prestige with the amount of money you can earn every year. Having prestigious job means you are alpha, the leader of the herds. However, from my observation, the amount of paycheck does not correlate much with the difficulty or intellectual capacity required for the job or even the values the job generates for the society.

The most well-paid economic sectors are engineering, business administration and finance whereas religion, early education and social work typically belong to the least paid. So, if the husband is a pastor and the wife is a banker, it would be normal if the wife can out-earn his husband (It does not mean that the pastor is less important than the banker. On the contrary, it is the most important one!) Of course, even with this rationalization, typically many people (in older generation) still cannot accept or content with this fact.

However, differ from the author, I do think that if the wife is the breadwinner, she should be head of the household. It is true that the Bible laid out the guideline that the wife should submit to her husband (Ephesians 5: 22). However, it has implicit assumption that wife is weaker partner than her husband (1 Peter 3: 7) as said by apostle Peter. This assumption is obviously general guideline and not applied to all cases. Some wives are really more educated, out-earns, more mature and even physically taller than their husband.

Of course, in ideal situation, it would be preferable that all husbands are stronger than their wives. Unfortunately, this is not ideal world. Instead of thinking about the negative, I am trying to think the positive side. I believe it is the command of God for all believers to marry (Genesis 1: 28) for procreation and hence if we insist to follow that guideline, many alpha woman and gamma man would not marry and it will be biological dead-end. However, if they do marry, I think that they should agree that the wife will be the head of household from the beginning and assume her all duties as provider and vice versa.

Posted in Economy, Family, Marriage, Politics, Religion | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The source of income in the old age outside state pension fund

I recently have been thought quite a lot about the phenomena of state-funded pension fund in developed countries. This is not the first time I thought about this. Previously, I noticed similarity between Parable of the Rich Fool in Luke 12: 13-21 with modern concept of saving for retirement. By equating many things inside the parable to modern terminologies (warehouse with CPF’s saving account, harvest with good paying white-collar job), and change the farmer’s word from ‘Eat, drink, be marry’ to ‘Shop, dine and travel’.

It is worse than in the parable in our modern world because this behavior of hoarding money is institutionalized by the state and it encourages selfishness and materialism. These few days, I have read several articles related to family and society and I would like to share the good one for all of us (Although I would disagree with using insurance companies as I think it is potentially almost the same as state pension fund):

From MercatorNet: Imagine old age without the state

Social security systems around the developed world are faced with a looming financing crisis. Unfunded pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) schemes are heading towards bankruptcy due to rising longevities, low fertility, and declining labour force participation rates.

Much of this is not accidental. Compulsory PAYGO schemes tend to discourage work in older ages and penalize larger families. Thus they contribute to their own bankruptcy.

False premises

The question is what to do about the situation. In Europe (where things are more serious), some countries are doing nothing, while others are raising minimum retirement ages and contribution rates. This will keep the systems running in the short term, but it fails to strike at the heart of the problem. In the long term, such measures discourage work even more, and they will make diligent workers slaves of a failing system.

A better solution is to get the state out of old-age security. The trouble is that many people cannot imagine old-age security without the state. This is particularly the case in continental Europe, where few people have private pension plans. To their minds, abolishing existing social security schemes implies millions of people starving to death or freezing out in the cold.

In communist countries, many people believed that capitalist economies were lacking even the basic necessities, whereas their benevolent governments were looking after them. But of course there can be food, houses, cars, and even music and literature without the state. There will be all of these in much greater abundance, when people are left free to pursue their own ends and satisfy their needs through individual responsibility, joint effort in local communities, and mutually beneficial exchanges in the marketplace. The same holds true for old-age security.

A combination of income sources

Still, many of those who basically accept free-market principles believe that the government should intervene in some areas, and that old-age security is one of them. Retirement, they think, is a far-off event, and therefore cannot be entrusted to markets. Besides, some people are not clever enough to save for their retirement, so the government must support them.

There is truth to these claims. However, the conclusions do not follow. In fact, precisely because old-age security is a challenging long-term issue, it should not be entrusted to politicians who are more concerned about satisfying the short-term needs of this or that special interest group.

Moreover, old-age security in a free society would not be a thing of the market alone. Most people would rely on a combination of sources: family, markets, mutual aid, charity, and work.

1. Family support

Governments did not invent pay-as-you-go social security. They copied it from the oldest social institution in the world — the family. Before the establishment of the modern welfare state, extended families functioned as a source of informal social insurance. Security in old age was provided on the basis of reciprocal generosity: parents procreated children, supported them and educated them. In return, children supported their elderly parents with money, housing, and care. This continues to be the basic pattern all around the developing world.

Before people were forced to finance the retirement of the rest of the society, they had many more children. Not just for the fun of it, but also because having children was economically sound. This is why people in less developed countries (LDCs) have larger families today. As Julian Simon once put it, those “who believe the poor do not weigh the consequences of having more children are simply arrogant, or ignorant, or both.”(1)

This was well known in 19th-century Europe. When Bismarck established the first social security system in the world, he did so for this very end: to replace the family. Whatever his reasons for such a brave move, he succeeded exceedingly well. Before Bismarck, Germany had one of the highest fertility rates in all of Europe. Today, its total fertility rate is below 1.4. This will reduce the mighty European nation to half of its present size in about 50 years — unless, of course, they decide to replace German kids with Arabs and North Africans.

Now, some people argue that governmental social security is more efficient than the family. For one thing, family support is more prone to localized risks. This much is correct. However, these risks can be alleviated by risk pooling — hence the norm in traditional societies is the extended family.

Besides, there are other reasons why public programs are actually less efficient than the family. They give rise to a range of free-riding and moral-hazard behaviours such as over-early retirement, faked disability, and having too few or no children. The extended family avoids these problems, because its members deal with each other regularly, know each other well, and have better incentives to act for the common good.

2. Financial markets

Not everyone can have a family, or indeed wishes to have one. These individuals can provide for themselves through the market. Modern financial markets provide a range of pension and savings plans. Even those who invested in a large family would probably save through the market as well.

There are some common worries regarding the market for savings and insurance. One is that people do not know how to invest, so they can be exploited by rogue dealers. Another is that markets cannot be trusted as funds may go bankrupt. A third kind of worry is that people are too foolish to save enough for retirement.

A major problem here is that we don’t actually have free financial markets. I am not just referring to the wasteful and anti-competitive over-regulation that is taking place. Saving and investing privately would be far easier and simpler if the government didn’t meddle with the monetary system.

First, governments pump more money into the economy, inflating the currency and making it more difficult for individuals to save. In many LDCs, it would be insane to keep your savings in paper money which loses its value at double-digit rates each year. In Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, the current situation is a real nightmare: annual price inflation has gone past 1000%. In LDCs there are few places to safely invest your wealth. But even in the United States and Europe, with allegedly “controlled inflation,” one needs actively to look for safer havens.

And safe havens are few and far between because of the secondary consequences of central-bank-led credit expansion. The central bank’s manipulation of interest rates gives rise to artificial business cycles, which make markets highly unstable. In this system, private individuals have every reason to be wary of financial markets, banks, and insurance companies. The overall result of government interference in monetary affairs is that people are increasingly dependent on their governments to look after them in times of need.

It’s better nevertheless

Despite the defects of the current system, financial markets work better than many believe. Firstly, competition is the best guarantee of good service and safe products. Yes, there can always be some hit-and-run companies trying to make short-term profits, but most people tend to rely on the more established operators with a longer-term track record — especially if one’s old-age security depends on it.

In the absence of state-provided old-age security, people would also develop investment skills. Presently, the public education system is leaving people so financially illiterate (if not literally illiterate) that one wonders how they can cope in the modern world. In the absence of governmental old-age provision, families and private individuals would have better incentives to learn the tricks of the trade so that they can look after themselves. People could also bundle together and form non-profit investment clubs, which would help them to choose good products and follow the markets.

The second concern, the risk of bankruptcies, is more complicated. First, one should remember that governmental schemes are not safe either, because pension benefits depend on various economic, demographic, and political factors. With a suitable legal framework, markets can provide more security. Second, much of the worry with pension plans has been due to harmful government regulation, which in the past directed funds to imprudent and hard-to-manage defined-benefit plans instead of safer defined-contribution plans.

A third worry is that people tend to save too little. This is the common argument for compulsory savings schemes. Compulsory savings are politically more popular than a genuine free market, but not necessarily a good idea. For one thing, compulsory savings schemes imply that the government is looking after the whole show, which tends to justify harmful over-regulation.

Moreover, there is a problematic assumption here, which is that everyone needs to save for their entire retirement. This is an inherently anti-family assumption. It forgets that children should be an economically valuable investment (although also more than that), just as they were in the past.

Indeed, it is often claimed by academics that, in countries without extensive government social security, people do not have enough retirement income. But the calculations on what is enough are inaccurate because they exclude factors one cannot measure — for example, the support that a mother of large family receives from her children is not captured in any statistics. But that is the most natural and common type of old-age security.

3, 4. Mutal aid and charities

In addition to families and markets, there is a mid-way solution, called mutual aid or fraternal societies. Before the advent of governmental welfare programs, mutual aid societies provided practically every kind of welfare service imaginable, including orphanages, hospitals, job exchanges, homes for the elderly, and scholarship programs. They also supplied health insurance at much lower rates than the present-day formal schemes. The reason they could do so is that members knew each other and supported each other, so there was less opportunity (and less desire) for moral hazard and free riding.

In a free society, mutual aid societies would possess several advantages as providers of old-age security. They are run by people who know each other, and there is a sense of community that avoids the inflexibilities of formal programs. They work better for those who lack financial skills. In the past, mutual aid societies were not elite groups but were usually run by working-class people who knew each other and knew how to solve each others’ problems.

As of today, they could combine their informality with the benefits of sophisticated financial markets so as to pool their risks better. They could also operate private investment clubs.

In addition, there would be charities. These would target the needs of the poorest members of the society, those who have no one else to look after them. In the absence of governmental social security programs, this would probably be just a small group, because the vast majority would be looked after by a combination of family, savings, and fraternal societies. Charity could also help those whose alternative support is inadequate.

The most common concern regarding charity is that is it based too much on emotions; thus it can be variable, and donors may be too slow to react to unobserved needs. But in fact, the opposite is actually true: charities are more dynamic and adaptable than government welfare agencies. Moreover, there are various charities — the International Red Cross is an easy example — that operate on a very long-term basis and have an extensive supporter network.

Charities are also better operated than public welfare programs. They achieve more with fewer resources, and they treat their clients with more humanity and dignity. They are also more concerned about the overall well-being of those in need. Unlike government welfare, private charities and mutual aid societies do not penalize effort and thrift, but encourage initiative and responsibility. Many also help their clients to find work, learn useful skills, and acquire personal virtues. The great advantage of charities is that they are commonly run by people who believe in something greater than the state.

A practical challenge is that even generous people do not always know how to help, and they are reluctant to give money to organizations they do not know well. This can be alleviated by portals and webtools such as the Samaritan Guide, set up by the Acton Institute’s Center for Effective Compassion.

5. Work

Last but not least, people can work in old age. This is not to say they must do so, but they should be free to continue working without being penalized by the disincentives embedded in the social security system.(2)

In fact, the very concept of “retirement” is an invention of the state. Before social security systems were established, the vast majority of people continued working past 65. Today it would be even easier to work longer, because health care is better and most jobs require no physical exertion.

In the absence of governmental old-age security, most people would probably work longer, either full time or part time. This would be economically more sound than early once-and-for-all retirement. Working longer would be an additional source of security for those who otherwise might be short of means in old age. Part-time work also provides better health on average; full retirement causes physical and mental health deterioration.(3)

According to survey results, many people would prefer to continue working anyway, even if they are financially secure.(4) Their work is an integral part of their life and an important source of companionship and meaning. The trouble is that it can be difficult for older workers to keep their jobs, particularly in European countries, where labour markets are over-regulated and age-based discrimination is prohibited. Therefore a sound policy of old-age security must be accompanied by the liberalization of the labour market.

The economic and moral benefits of freedom

Old-age security is not merely possible without the state. It would be far better that way. It would be more secure than public social security, which is based on empty promises by politicians. Existing governmental schemes are rapidly heading towards insolvency after only 50–70 years of operation. A non-governmental arrangement would be more secure, because people would rely on a combination of income sources, so that the system would be more robust, flexible, and dynamic. It would also cater to different individual circumstances and preferences, and it would provide better incentives to work, save, and have children.

The benefits of a system of old-age security without the state would be more than economic. It would also foster the acquisition of personal virtues and responsibility, which would then be reflected in other spheres of private and social life. A non-governmental system would even treat the least fortunate members of the society with more humanity and dignity, and there would be fewer such people overall.

Old-age security is far too important to be left in the hands of the state.


Posted in Economy, Family, Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Strange bug in Visual Studio

OK, It has been a long time I never post about programming here although I am supposed to be software engineer (or probably more IT consultant for last 1 year). I encountered this strange bug which cause cannot be identified.

So, basically my program is supposed to compute certain amount of money to certain group of people. There is a case whereby the computation went wrong and I need to check this particular person by inserting breakpoint to check local variable…

Breakpoint Bug 1


I am supposed to insert break point at line 210, so I saved the file, cleaned and rebuild the project, put the break point there and then start debugging my C# console application project.

Then, to my frustration, the break point always shifted to next line upon program execution:

Breakpoint Bug 2


I tried to restart the Visual Studio, reclean and rebuild solution, playing around with project Properties page and so on, with no success. I have also tried to tweak the debugging statement:

By adding curly bracket:

Breakpoint Bug 3

By adding another variable:

Breakpoint Bug 4

Still no success….Then after around 1 hour, I found that I need to modify the statement to the following…

Breakpoint Bug 5

It turned out that Microsoft Visual Studio cannot insert break point to the variable assignment to constant value…which is very strange. After around 10 years studying programming, I just knew about such limitation -.-.


Posted in Technology | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

2014 life update

As the end of the year is approaching, I find it will be useful for me to recap the significant events of the year happened in my life. When my grandma passed away, we discovered that actually she kept her dairy as long as 20 years, recording all sorts of event during her marriage.

Personally, I do not think this blog will last until 20 years. As I have said before, paper is still arguably better medium for storing information in term of durability compared to computer. However, computer and internet is better than paper in term of speed and mobility.

I wish for my old self to be able to read this post with thanksgiving in my heart. When I know that God has lead me throughout all kind of difficulties and still survive, it will be enough reason to continue life and changing the world is not required to be happy.

1. Feb 2014 – I started to give allowance to my dad 

At around the same time when my grandma passed away, my dad has told me he did not want to work anymore as his photo studio now has already bankrupted. Hence, currently he planned to sell his multi-storey industrial building to move to smaller house which is easier to maintain and just earning his living expense by bank interest.

Until that thing happens, I need to pay him for his monthly allowance and also my step-mom. He confessed to me that his saving is not more than S$3,000 now and it will be difficult for him to survive if he waited until his property sold.

My family admittedly has the dark past. My parents have divorced and then remarried. I am trapped in never-ending family politics from my elementary school. My mom got the child custody right and hence I rarely ever meet my dad. And usually, every time we meet there is always problem to fight about since my family has a lot of financial difficulty and internal problem.

I also initially rejected his plea for thinking in the past he has rejected to fund even my food expense. The given reason is that it is the courts decision that my mom should bear all costs of child custody and then his new wife controlled his financial decision.

However, upon further consideration and after my grandma passed away, I decided to change my mind. As I do not know for how long my dad can live and I think it is more healthy to live with peace with people around you. Furthermore, I tried to distance myself from thought that I reaped no reward for all my hard work in Singapore and my parents, who neglected me during my childhood, enjoyed it instead. For probably it is the fate that my reward is on this world but the next one. I cannot choose to my parents and hence I need to do this despite all their shortcoming.

2. Jun 2014 – I have been officially discharged from tuition grant bond

Having been working here for almost 5 years now, I am supposed to be released from tuition grant bond. For readers’ information, tuition grant is kind of semi-scholarship granted by Singapore government to international students to study in their public university. Singapore paid around 70% of your school fee but as the condition, you need to work here for 3 years.

Hence, I was enrolled into NTU (Nanyang Technological University) and graduated in 2009. So, by right, I am able to go back to Indonesia in 2012. However, after some financial consideration, I decide to stay here for awhile until 2016.

Reflecting upon my academic history, now I am feeling guilty and regreted for excessive ambition I have in the past. Due to competitive environment, I focused too much on my study and not building enough meaningful friendship during my time in university.

For no matter how much smart you are, you will be surrounded by those have the similar capabilities as you so sometimes it required a lot of self-control not to compare yourself against people around you.

Yes, I still lamented that I should be fully concentrated for the selection for IMO (International Mathematical Olympiad) and not be overconfident for good result in previous selection. I also regretted that I am not serious enough in my work after graduation that I cannot maintain stable job in Singhealth.

However, considering my awful family background: my dad did not even finish high school and my mom was disabled when I was 8. Due to family conflict, I need to move from house to house FIVE times for 3 years during my secondary years.  Despite all of that, I can fund almost my entire secondary and high school by scholarship, earned two-times bronze medals in National Science Olympiad and enrolled into and graduated from one of the best university in the world (NTU), I considered it as the grace of God.

3. Jul 2014 – My supervisor resigned from office

So now, after family and study, come real job in corporate world. Admittedly, during my time in university, I never really enjoyed to work in team project and also I never did extra study how to improve my efficiency for working in team. Probably, I am over-reliant on exam result because it constituted majority of our assessment. Implicitly, I assumed that technical knowledge alone will be sufficient to land me a good job.

Actually, it is partially true. Technical knowledge will enable you to ace during job test and secured good job with good salary. However, I soon learned that it is not enough. You can probably score high during interview, but to maintain your job, you need to quickly learn your company’s culture, the personality of individuals you are working with and how to deal with them, following certain methodologies (like proper testing, report and presentation) to be able to do the job properly, knowing how to persuade or argue with people and so on.

I must admit that I am severely lacking in some aspects in interpersonal skills. Before I worked in my current company, I was terminated once, was forced to resign once, and need to tender resignation because of conflict with my supervisor in my previous company.

Hence after frustation of feeling my own past incompetence, I am thinking of changing my career. I explored many possibilities including other engineering branches (especially renewable energies and mechanical engineering). But, due to my parents’ situation, I soon realized that that is not viable option.

And then, I prayed to God to show me the place with good boss. After awhile, I have an interview from Hiend and soon accepted into company. And I admitted that my current boss is extremely lenient (no micromanagement and continuous monitoring) compared to my first job in Singhealth.

This is not to say that my job is easy. My supervisor resigned for further study in Jun 2014 and hence I need to take over all projects he handled (3 in total) plus my own projects from previous resigned employees (5 in total). I think the total increment I got (S$300) is still not proportional to the increase of my workload.

So, I am handling 8 IT projects and on average there will be tasks on 3-4 projects every day. However, having now worked for 1 years and 7 months (my longest record) here, I feel that God has shown me the way for me to survive in my current company. Thanks to that, I do not need to change career and I can still pay allowance of my three parents of S$1000 per month.

4. Sep 2014 – My study in Chinese Medicine started

I always want to have a hobby which I can enjoy to use during non-professional contexts (like family and church). However, due to my previous overemphasize on course study, extra-curricular competition (like IMO and ICPC) and church ministry, I hardly find some time to cultivate hobby. Previously, I have tried many things like playing violin, learning Japanese, dragon dance, aikido, gardening, and so on, but I do not take those things seriously and always stop doing after awhile.

I observed that many of my friends spent their extra money earned from their good job into expensive entertainments like traveling, buying personal transport, newest gadget, game console and so on.

For some reasons, when I graduated, I like to follow news about problems in society (And conspiracy theories). During that time, I am thinking of doing something which can at least alleviate problem to the world.

So, I am thinking instead of using my money into something unproductive and just providing entertainment, convenience or hoarding like rich fool man, I think it will be more useful for me to spend it for self-development. And I started to think about some hobbies to be learned which can be useful.

Earlier, I learned about renewable energy. But due to my financial commitment and the withdrawal of course subsidy, I decided not to continue the course.  Then, I read an article on website Zero Hedge about increasingly unaffordable healthcare cost. Previously, I went to pay for my grandpa’s hospitalization bill and it costs around S$8,000 and witnessing that Western medicine is extremely ineffective in treating my mom’s chronic disease, I am anxious about my family not able to afford it in the future.

Then, considering that I will have many people approaching their 50s and 60s (my dad, mom, step-mom, my aunt, and even my maid) living near me, I decided to take Chinese Medicine course to be at least able to cultivate health for myself and to do simple health check to my own family. Personally, I think it will be more useful hobby instead of traveling to exotic places.

 5. Now – The search for spouse

Now, about this last topic, I need to admit that I am not very good with befriending woman during my time in school and university. Also, after you graduated from university, the chance you meet opposite gender decreased dramatically, especially because I came from engineering field. Usually, even the women who are software engineer have already engaged.

So, the only hope to meet opposite gender is probably the church especially cell group and youth service. However, unfortunately, I have asked for dating two of single women inside my church and they rejected. And adding into that, my cell group is extremely diverse and we have people from different nationalities (Vietnam, China, Malaysia and Singapore).

As mentioned previously, since I planned to go back to Indonesia, I will prefer those from Indonesia or close country and able or willing to learn speak Malay. That criteria alone has already disqualified most girls inside the church.  The nationality consideration is for parents-in-law. It will be extremely unfair if one side of spouse will need to separate almost permanently from their parents and I do not think it is the right thing to do.

So, I tried online dating but failed miserably so far. One of the common stated reason is that they cannot do LDR seriously or that the girls disagreed with my principle of finding spouse (like stating criteria first without need to become friend). As I have stated previously, I found that that principle is more reasonable than the commonly believed myth about ‘befriend’ first and then marriage come last.

Question for girls – if two guys are approaching you:

– One is extremely attractive atheist guy with fanciful movie-like characters you dreamed about (romantic, humorous, creative (can dance, play guitar, compose song, magic, etc), well-build body)

– One is average but devout Christian with clear life principles and beta qualities like excellent education, stable job but a bit of nerdy and serious and cannot make you ‘tingle’

How many of you will choose second one instead of first one?

From what I saw so many people there online say they are ‘serious’ want to marry but say they want to ‘befriend’ first without mentioning any criteria about values (belief) and principles. If ‘befriend’ is the first thing you ask then you should just hang around shopping mall and cafe instead of commercial and need-to-pay online dating website.

I just feel they are not serious enough for not thinking this one through and probably will need to wait for some times.


Posted in Personal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Adult vs children’s criteria for spouse

Ok, so from previous post I have said that if you want to get married, you should find the person who are suitable to become good spouse instead of good friend. So, I can elaborate further from what I understand, what differentiate children from adult is the mindset.

Adults are expected (or inclined to) to take long-term consequence and responsibility for their action. Hence, they are expected to spare some thoughts for anything they do which involve long-term effects (like marriage, job, and ministry) for themselves and people around them.

Children, in contrast, usually thought only short-term benefits for themselves and lack of critical thinking to plan for the future and consequences of their action. Even if some of them aware what are the most important things, they usually failed to translate it in their action because of lack of self-control. This thing also what distinguishes adult from children.

Here are example of adult’s requirements (sorted on most important to least important) when they are looking for spouse:

For adult men

1) Have similar beliefs and values (in religion, politics and family) or if not, have a tolerance to accept the differences without resulting on debate on every disagreement.

2) Family come from same or similar background (same culture or race) and can accept each others without any existing prejudice for their son or daughter-in-law (their job, education, social status (from wealthy, middle-class, or worker), race, religion, Chinese zodiac and so on).

3) Ability to become good wife (i.e. have already used to daily housekeeping such as budgeting (for shopping), cooking and child care)

4) Have same interests during leisure time (usually like sports and video games), compatible personality (not much nagging), and lifestyle (especially the use of money, time, and friends)

5) All other miscellaneous physical things, like age, beauty, body curve, etc

For adult women

1) Have similar beliefs and values (in religion, politics and family) or if not, have a tolerance to accept the differences without resulting on debate on every disagreement.

2) Family come from same or similar background (same culture or race) and can accept each others without any existing prejudice for their son or daughter-in-law (their job, education, social status (from wealthy, middle-class, or worker), race, religion, Chinese zodiac and so on).

3) Ability to become good husband. Either come from wealthy family, have a good educational background or good career (with salary that able to feed at least 4 people), and have detail plan (about 3-5 years in advance) about future study or work.

4) Have same interests during leisure time (usually like shopping, fashion, and travel), compatible personality (good listener), and lifestyle (especially the use of money, time, and friends)

5) All other miscellaneous physical things, like height and strength (or body posture).

For childish men and women – Reverse from 5) to 1)

So, if you have people who said they want a spouse you should ask what is their first criteria. From there, you can determine how serious they are.

Posted in Marriage | Tagged , , | Leave a comment