i saw this poster hanging from the ceiling of the Cheers store opposite my flat which said this.

"100 tickets must be won to watch jolin 'live' in concert! Spend min. $5 to qualify."

Now, enlighten me if i am mistaken, but should the word "must" be replaced with "to"? After all, the chances of winning a whopping 100 tickets just to "watch jolin 'live in concert!" are not that high. I don't think the chances of winning even 1 ticket is high. So whoever can actually win the 100 tickets must be one lucky bugger.
Furthermore, assuming that you spend a minimum of $5 to qualify, what does it qualify you for? 1 ticket? 100 tickets? Either way it doesn't make sense. if it's $5 to stand a chance to win 1 ticket, it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to calculate that one must spend at least $500 just to have the chance to win 100 tickets. And that's assuming for every $5, you do win 1 ticket. Even a ticket for "Phantom of the Opera" isn't worth $500. Or World Cup tickets. But maybe PotO and WC are all passe. Move aside Phantom, Jolin in the house!

The other alternative would be even more implausible. If you spend $5 to qualify for 100 tickets, Cheers would be haemorrhaging money. Assuming, this time, that each ticket costs $40 (which is about the average price, unless i am sorely mistaken), Cheers would lose $4000-$5= $3995! Which self-respecting convenience store trying to compete with the likes of 7-11 would be so bloody stupid to risk $3995 just to try to boost their sales a little?

Of course, these arguments are all based on the assumption that the word "must" should be replaced with "to". But something's not right. Firstly, Cheers's own website states clearly that "Cheers, a wholly owned subsidiary of NTUC Fairprice Co-operative Ltd", which Wikipedia states "is a co-operative of the National Trade Union Congress", which Wikipedia also states "Relations between PAP and NTUC are very close", which Wikipedia also states that PAP "has been the ruling political party in Singapore since 1959 and thus enjoys a significant role in the formation of the government of Singapore". So, unless i'm making a wrong logic jump, Cheers is owned by the government?

At the expense of sounding like a patriot, but mistakes and the Singapore government do not go together. My history textbook tells me that it was the government who solved the problem of housing in the 1960s, after the war. It was also the government which introduced technical education to prepare less well-educated students enter the workforce more easily. It does not follow, then, that if the government is capable of formulating such important policies, surely it cannot make a simple language mistake? If any staff from Cheers, NTUC, or the government came across my humble abode, (which have pretty high chances at 1/3,000,000, assuming everyone in Singapore has a blog, and i'm not counting blogs of staff from the aforementioned 3 bodies. If you don't, you are outdated, because even our ministers have blogs now!) please do not take my questions personally. I am not trying to offend anyone, but merely to express my humble opinion.

No, something is not right here. Either the government made a mistake when designing that poster (specifically Cheers staff), or one really has to win 100 tickets just to watch Jolin 'live' in concert. I can only eliminate the first option and deduce that yes, one must win 100 tickets just to watch Jolin 'live' in concert.