+~a howl of pure ecstasy~+

Higher class?

30th July 2005

Wow... The storm looks extemely scary today. Looks like an re-enactment from War of the Worlds when the tripods are being sent down.

On my way to NUH yesterday morning, a "weird" looking signboard caught my eye and it took me awhile to realise what that is. A newly created "Institute of Technical Education" was plastered over the old "ITE (Dover)" in the signboard. Institute of Technical Education... it really took a few seconds to translate to ITE. Are they trying to upgrade their name/class? All along ITE has been a local icon of "cannot-make-it" students and since then everyone condemns it. Now it "suddenly" changes itself to an Institute (all along it's institute but "ITE" has been stagnant for a long time), it really confuses me at first! Maybe the Government is trying to upgrade it's image. And recently it has been heard over the news that this "Instituition" is gonna spread it's wings to China, hoping that it will become Asia's top Technical Education school. Well, the thing is only a fraction of ITE students are willing to strive and work hard, what about the rest? So... What's your say?

I've been reading Gerrie Lim's "Invisible Trade: High-class sex for sale in Singapore", it talks about the ugly side of Singapore that we don't see --- escorts and prostituion. BDSM in this little red dot? It never occured to me until I read it. William Gibson quoted Singapore in Wired magazine as "Disneyland with the Death Penalty" because the sex industry is deem legal yet not legitimized. I can understand that because Singapore is still a conservative society! No wonder there's "legal" places like Geylang and Orchard Towers. The police raids these places only for over-staying foreigners and not for sex workers, at least these people are concentrated and confined to these 2 places if not all round the island. Which do you prefer? Can see that over the years Singapore is trying to "open" itself up but still has a long way to go...

jOoOoOey sparkled at 11:55 am

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*