- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 89,518
- Points
- 113
I see a lot of similarities between the this world cup on tv saga and the dominance of the pappies.By boycotting the rates from the Sinkhell and Starsucks doesn't mean one is being stingy. It is a way of showing consumer displeasure of the way the deal is handled.
Similarly we can vote against PAP to show our disapproval of the way they run the country in the last decade.
It is a means of sending the message across.
The issue is not whether $70 to watch the world cup on tv is expensive or not. The issue is whether it is expensive compared to what other countries have to pay. And the answer to this is definitely yes.
Similarly, the issue is not whether the pappy government is paid highly or not. The issue is whether they are paid highly compared to governments of other countries. Again, the answer is yes.
Just like when they assess the population, the pappies bank on the fact that they just about have the numbers to get by.
Out of 10 people, they are thinking that 2 don't watch football at all; perhaps 2 watch football but don't mind not watching the world cup; 2 can afford to pay and will pay; 2 can afford to pay but because of principles, stubborness or because they have other methods, refuse to pay; 2 can't afford to pay and obviously won't pay.
Disgruntled people: 4 out of 10.
Conclusion: They still win.