"The Rounds" May 2, 2008

A Belated Happy 58th Wedding

Anniversary to Their Majesties

the King & Queen, April 28, 2008!!!

Who knows whose figures to believe on the sharp increases in price for this staple, other than traders who follow it second by second over the long term? Even from a single news source one gets conflicting information.

But what's clear is that prices have increased dramatically, especially since around the first of the year. Thai rice surged from about US$950 per ton to US$1,000 per ton -- on Friday alone, a 5% spike.

Now the concern is moving even into major industrialized nations, such as the U.S., where the two biggest warehouse retailers, Costco and Sam's Warehouse, are limiting purchases of their largest bags of rice as customers have begun buying large quantities of the new "white gold."

Thai P.M. Samak has just concluded his maiden visit as P.M. to Malaysia, where his Malaysian counterpart sought his assurances Thailand's exporters will fulfill their contracts to Malaysia of about 480,000 tons this calendar year. P.M. Samak gave the desired assurances, and apparently the Thai Rice Exporters Association is backing him on that. With India, Vietnam, and Egypt limiting their exports in recent days, joined on Wednesday by Brazil (a story I missed until just now), anxiety is ratcheting up.

I really don't know what the consumer is to do. Prices are bound to go up, at least for awhile; that's one point just about everyone agrees on. But what will the effect of hoarding buying have on prices? Drive them up more? Faster? Both?

In a related area, I was stunned today to read that 38% of the total U.S. corn crop is currently going to biofuel production.

A couple of my Thai friends who just Thursday said they had no plans to buy a cushion of rice changed their minds Friday evening when I mentioned Friday's price increase. They watched local news for themselves and told me they'll be heading to the market tomorrow to buy at least a small supply, maybe 10 or 20 kilos.

The impact goes beyond the meal plate. For instance, Malaysia has put on hold or abandoned some anticipated mega-projects, such as the high-speed rail link between Singapore and Jahor Bahru so the government can turn resources towards the most pressing need: food security.

It's perhaps instructive to recall the final days of World War II in Europe. Before Germany finally surrendered, some Allied soldier managed to get a message out in a letter to his family in the form of a poem that escaped the military censors' eyes. Someone in his family had a eureka moment in trying to figure out why the soldier, not a poet, would write a poem home.

That relative happened to focus -- only the heavens know why -- on the first letters of each line of the poem. They spelled out, in vertical fashion, something dramatic the Allied public didn't know: "Germany is starving."

In one very real sense, the Nazi war machine succumbed, in the end, to food shortages. Which is another way, if an indirect one, of saying the experts claiming food security is one of the great challenges of the 21st century are probably exactly right. Those shortages could spark wars.

One person I know has tried to help in her own tiny, individual way to help: a mutual friend told me she went out and bought 100 kilos of rice and parceled it out to needy friends. (That lady will never know from me I know; she did it with no aim for praise or even recognition.)

Japan has jumped in on a national scale, pledging a total of US$100 million in emergency aid, mostly to African countries, half in May, the other half within the following three months. (I am still wondering why Japan doesn't give away some of its own excess rice rather than beseeching its farmers to cut production, given that the country does have a generous, robust foreign aid program, some of it in the form of outright gifts.)

At the end of the day, for the person unable to afford -- perhaps even to have available -- enough rice for dinner tonight, it really doesn't matter what the whys are. He doesn't care, does he, as he and his family sit hungry? Maybe it's global warming. Maybe it's hoarding. Maybe it's the unregulated nature of international agricultural trade. Or maybe it's the position of the stars.

Update, 1:30 P.M. Tuesday, April 29, 2008: Just read a Bangkok Post story headlined "Paddy summit' proposed" reporting the news that Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath yesterday proposed such a summit, to be held in Bangkok, with regional heavyweight rice exporters all taking part. He also added that India is willing to follow Thailand's lead, given that the Kingdom is the largest single rice-exporting nation in the world.

The Minister said these countries need to coordinate on the best way to get past the building food crisis (which it is, in some places, though not here in Thailand).

It was a bit surprising to read this proposal from India -- considering that the Indian government recently imposed fairly stringent export controls on some of its rice to ensure domestic food supplies.

It's also laudable. If any government is overly well-acquainted with extreme poverty, India's is one, for sure.

In a separate surprise development, I heard on television news this morning that at today's regular weekly Cabinet meeting here in Bangkok the rice supplies here are scheduled to dominate the discussion as someone plans to propose the government seel some of its strategic food supply. The stated intent is not to harm farmers or others in the normal supply chain, but to be sure the very poorest members of the country will have access to affordable food.

I just checked online, and neither major English-language newspaper has anything about the outcome of that discussion, nor indication even exactly when it was scheduled.

If the Cabinet endorses the proposal, it'll be a complete reversal of the Prime Minister's vow just three weeks or so ago not to intervene in the rice market.

Well, given the rain right in my neighborhood the past couple of days, and elsewhere across greater Bangkok in recent days, it appears the monsoon season is here a bit earlier than it has come in some years. Not markedly earlier, especially, but earlier anyway.

The daytime highs Thursday and Friday were around 31°C/88°F, with the overnight lows of about 25°C/77°F. Considering that barely a week ago the daytime highs were way higher than those two days', owing to cloud cover and rain, the difference is significant.

I'm not complaining, mind you. While I'm no fan of flooding, I sure do appreciate being able to open my doors and windows, turn on my fans, and sit around comfortable enough without having to run my air-conditioners.

I just hope the farmers are getting the proper amounts of rain they need for their current crops.

Just read a story on Yahoo! News headlined "Airline Security" reporting that starting May 3, 2008, travelers on some U.S. airlines (they're listed in the story) through Rome's new Terminal 5 at the city's Leonardo Da Vinci Fiumicino international airport will undergo extra security screening on flights bound for the U.S. and Israel.

Look: I'm for being secure. After all, I do fly with reasonable frequency, several times yearly.

A child five years old gets detained and separated from his Mother because his name happens to be on a U.S. TSA's no-fly list? Does it take rocket science to figure out the kid isn't the nogoodnik the security agents are seeking? I mean -- why don't the poor guys and gals on the front lines have some discretionary authority to use a little common sense -- which, in the case of the TSA, they still don't.

The story made no mention of airlines to be caught in this snare beyond those based in the U.S., which leads me to wonder if airlines from, oh, say, Saudi Arabia -- home to most of the 9/11 hijackers -- that may also transit through Rome's airport will also be subject to additional checks.

Any terrorist with two brain cells to rub together can figure out it's probably a good idea to book a ticket on Air Nakhon Nowhere rather than a high profile carrier. But if the lack of mention of non-U.S. airlines means U.S. ones will be subject to the new screening -- what's the point, at the end of the day?

I suspect a big part of the problem is the anti-profiling sentiment prevalent in many Western countries. It's indisputably true profiling can be abused. It's also indisputably true it can be a boon to security and police officers in many settings.

Leave the cops out of it. Is it all that hard to suppose a waiter at a high-society banquet in a five-star hotel might question the presence of a shabbily dressed, unwashed beggar at such an event?

Though Ma and Pa Jones from Podunk, Nebraska may indeed to turn out to be wild-eyed terrorists intent on blowing up their Delata flight over the Atlantic, I reckon the odds they are must be pretty small. As in "near zero."

In a somewhat related development, did you see the news some U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill are raising the roof that U.S. RFID-embedded passports are being physically manufactured right here in the Kingdom? Doesn't that make you wonder why they don't recall that (1.) this is where the chips are made Congress elected to buy and (2.) that it was the Congress itself that authorized the program -- indeed, demanded it -- allocated the funds, then sat by until now, a considerable while after those passports began being churned out? (Well -- it is an election year, so every little sound bit counts.)

I've been to the U.S. only once during the post-9/11 era. And I quite willingly did every single thing any official asked or directed me to do, without argument, and without resentment, which made for completely smooth sailing for me. But I do wonder about other passengers passing through going through the minimal check who sure set alarms off in my mind -- and that's not even my job. I very nearly didn't board my most recent flight, to Vientiane, when two other passengers followed me (or so it appeared) around Suvarnabhumi Airport prior to departure. I quite deliberately went completely unexpected, unpredictable ways repeatedly -- I had arrived way early -- only to have them show up moments after me.

Plus, they looked shady. No, I can't paint a verbal picture of what a shady person looks like. But I damned sure know one when I see him.

To my delight, I happened to be seated slightly behind and across the aisle from them on the flight. And yes, guilty as charged: I kept an eye on them.

But not once at the airport here in Bangkok did any security personnel pay them the slightest attention, which was hardly reassuring.

This surgery performed with a laser to improve a person's vision, sometimes dramatically, is quite popular. I know two or three people right here in Thailand (or knew them when they were still living here) who had the surgery and were satisfied to a degree.

But one did not get the benefits he had sought. I was surprised when he opted to have the surgery done (here in Bangkok) because he didn't need glasses except for reading. The surgery succeeded at that -- but left him with slightly degraded night vision, just enough he has to wear glasses to drive at night. He also says that while before the surgery his vision was extremely sharp when he wore his glasses with their quite mild prescription, afterwards visual images were every so slightly fuzzy.

On the other hand, another guy I know who had the surgery practically spasmed with delight at the results. As is the usual procedure (I think), he had the eyes treated in two surgeries, with a recovery period in between. Once he had experienced a whole new world with the vastly improved vision in the treated eye, he could scarce wait to have the other eye operated on. While he still wears reading glasses, he is pleased to this day that he went through the surgeries.

Having considered investigating whether this surgery might boost my extremely poor vision, if not free me from glasses -- I think I'd need an eye transplant for that! ;-) -- but never have gotten around to it.

In U.S. Congressional hearings, a number of people in the U.S. who have had the surgery recounted their stories, all unhappy ones, in this case, since that was the whole point of the hearings.

Well aware the medical tourism industry here in Thailand has boomed in recent years, including, presumably, some percentage of those who come are here for Lasik surgery, the local tie-in practically leaped out at me.

This is not to say the procedure is fraught with peril; a very great many people have benefited immensely from it. Especially noteworthy is that the U.S. military has the greatest experience with it, and say that way under 1% of military patients suffer any long-lasting negative effects -- which is impressive, but no help if you end up on the wrong side of the numbers. The military has enough confidence in the operation it allows even pilots to have it --as NASA allows it for astronauts.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration plans to conduct a massive study soon to try to tabulate the results, as existing studies outside the military have reached significantly differing conclusions.

I also want to make clear that I don't mean to imply Thailand lacks qualified surgeons. It does have them -- consider my friend with his spectacular results, obtained from a surgery performed by a Thai eye surgeon.

The point is the surgery itself. If you think you're a candidate, you'll undoubtedly to be extra careful in making your decision, including which doctor you feel is best qualified.

So, why am I glad I procrastinated? I knew that people suffering extreme nearsightedness, as I have all my life, can't expect to be freed of glasses. I did not know, until I read the story, that I'm a very poor candidate for Lasik precisely because of the severity of my nearsightedness.

There is an alternative, though I've not read about it in awhile, so don't know the current state of the art: surgically-inserted contact lenses.

Back in the late 1970's, I happened to win a scuba air tank in a drawing at a local dive shop in Texas. Not scuba qualified, I asked if I could swap the tank of gear I might actually use of comparable value, and the manager, a retired commercial airline pilot as it turned out, readily agreed.

One of the items I wanted was a face mask, but I knew I couldn't wear my glasses with it on, so I asked if it was possible to have a prescription face plate made. the guy told me it was, but that the costs was stratospheric.

He suggested I ask my eye doctor about having contact lenses implanted, something I hadn't even known was possible -- which I doubted it was, thinking he was pulling my leg. He told me he had done exactly that a few years before when his vision fell outside minimal requirements to be an airline pilot, and asked me to look at his pupils. I did, but couldn't see anything unusual, and said so. He moved in close -- and then I spotted it: his pupils were diamond-shaped, not round. And he wasn't wearing glasses.

He told me that while the operation was still experimental as we spoke, after he had it with resounding success, achieving perfect 20-20 vision in both eyes, he petitioned his airline to return him to flight status. After a lot of hand-wringing by airline officials and the pilot certification authorities, everyone agreed that since the medicos told them there was absolutely no reason to keep him grounded on the grounds of his eyesight -- bingo: he return to command captain status. (A mild heart attack a few years later, when he was old enough to retire anyway, grounded him, so he threw in the towel.)

I do recall reading that surgery now uses round lenses, not the square ones tilted 45 degrees. (No, I haven't the slightest idea why they were square nor why they were tilted. The man's did look weird, I have to admit.)

There may be still other possibilities I don't know about. But if you are considering the surgery, then you'll surely try to learn all the options available to you, your suitability for each, and so on.

And don't forget that if you decide to have a procedure performed outside your home country to consider the possibilities should things go wrong. A whole lot of countries don't have good patient-protection laws, so you could end up with a botched operation and little, if any, real legal recourse. (Some months ago the medical community in Thailand made a major move to make doctors exempt from malpractice suits, for instance, though as far as I know, that hasn't happened.)

Just read about a website people can join to become either lenders or borrowers, an interesting concept.

In the feedback comments to the story, a couple people said they had tried being lenders but asserted that even if you don't actually lose money on the loans, which aren't secured, you'll almost certainly not make anywhere near what the website claims you can. One or two others reported they were doing okay.

While I didn't check the site, it was clear from the article the service is U.S.-oriented. Besides, borrowing or lending across borders could get right hairy for both sides.

However, portions of the concept started me thinking whether there's something here that can be adapted to a Thailand context.

Loans can be small -- in the case of the website, something like US$50. Folks at the website reportedly check out a person's credit history (a point to which I'll return), verify the borrower's employment, whether or not he has gone through bankruptcy in the last seven years (the period a bankruptcy remains on one's credit record in the U.S.) etc. then assign a risk level.

Potential lenders review loan requests and can see the reports the website has gathered then, if they want to "bid" on the loan, they choose the desired interest and amount they're willing to lend. If the interest level they bid is the lowest on offer, you can make the loan; if not, you either have to bid again or pass up the loan.

By the way, you can offer to lend a portion of the requested amount -- you don't have to offer the whole sum. So, if someone has put out a request to borrow, say, US$1,000 but for whatever reason you don't want to commit that much, you can offer even a small amount, maybe US$100, or even less.

First is that the length of the loans is set a three years, and a lot of people may be hesitant to have their money tied up that long.

Second, although interest rates can run over 30% in those U.S. states which permit it, there appears to be some uncertainty just what that means: a flat "fee" of 30%, or whatever is agreed, a flat 30% per annum on the loan amount, or 30% APR? The answer to that question is necessary to figure out what sort of return on your investment you can expect, assuming the borrower doesn't default.

Third, some of the people commenting said the website charges a hefty 17% slice of whatever interest you get as a collection fee. (They also collect a fee from borrowers, so these fees are how the website folks make their money.)

For starters, here there are the usual bank loans, but a lot of banks don't want to fool around with small amounts.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, friends do borrow from friends -- consider how many low-income people borrow from each other, month after month. Often they don't charge each other any interest, instead lending out of friendship or kinship, with an eye on being able to go back and themselves borrow a little money next month. So, there's no money to be made there. Besides, defaults can badly disrupt relationships.

In between there are the ubiquitous pawn shops. Thai friends have told me these are lenders of last resort because the shops require property as security worth far more than the borrowed amount (property often in the form of gold jewelry) and charge very high interest rates.

So, maybe there is a niche market possibility. Internet penetration isn't as high here as in the U.S., so setting up shop on the web might or might not work as a business model.

But think about that lady in Bangladesh who started making tiny loans to other women to help them start a small business, such as a home-based tailoring service or a sidewalk restaurant. And she has been very, very successful and attained a global cult status with admirers of her project, which she means to be more of a social service than a profit spinner. I haven't been to Bangladesh, but I'm pretty sure not many folks have electricity -- never mind computers and Internet connections.

Of course, this whole idea may be utterly ridiculous in a Thai setting. Or maybe it's not a legal business, or a heavily regulated one. And -- are there such things as credit reports here, ones reasonably accessible?

You may recall back a few months ago when a taxi driver here got rightly-received praise for going to quite a bit of trouble to return a briefcase a businessman had left in his taxi with a large amount of money -- in the form of checks, however, not currency. Still, the driver is worthy of the accolades he received.

Seems that taxi driver Rang Wanthumm discovered a briefcase a Japanese businessman had forgotten when he exited the taxi yesterday. The briefcase's contents? Well the good stuff was nearly 500,000 baht -- in cold, hard cash.

The newspaper report says the driver is being given some rewards from the government, including 10,000 baht cash. However, nothing was said if the businessman gave him anything when he returned it. You certainly would think the businessman would give the driver something, wouldn't you?

Khun Rang sure deserves what the government has on the cards, hands down. So many people -- and I don't mean just among our Thai hosts -- would at least cast a longing eye on so much money -- for anyone not familiar with the Thai baht, the amount returned works out to to just over a measly US$.08 shy of US$14,950.00!

When Are You Innocently

Bringing in Too Much Alcohol or Too

Many Cigarettes -- and When Are You Smuggling?

Right up front, the short answer is simple: I don't know, and certainly have no qualifications to explain law.

But "Bullet" from Dublin has been in town with Khun Tang, his wife, for three weeks -- he left about damn this morning back to Ireland -- had what may be an instructive experience when he flew into Suvarnabhumi Airport.

He had four cartons of cigarettes in a duty free bag as he strode towards the Customs area. A security guard (or some one in a uniform, anyway), stopped and asked what he had in the bag. He told the guy the truth. The guard suggested he place the cigarettes in a suitcase, which he did. A friend traveling with them had three cartons, and he either placed them in his suitcase or already had them in it.

Then they went to clear Customs. Bullet told me the officers directed him and his friend to open their suitcases, and when they saw the cigarettes, they told him he had exceeded the legal limit and would have to pay a fine. For reasons he didn't understand, the officers fined him not only for his four cartons but his friend's three (and confiscated the cigarettes, of course).

How much was the fine? Try 24,500 baht (just cents under US$778.00) -- 350 baht per package! Pretty steep fine. "That'll teach you, you smuggler!" I guess is the lesson there.

I'm not clear if this next bit is what the officers told him or he heard from someone else later. He said apparently if you have the excess ciggies in a plastic bag, the presumption is you didn't know better, or at least weren't trying to smuggle -- but if you "hide" them in a suitcase, then the presumption is you were, indeed, trying to smuggle.

That's interesting enough, if correct, but there's another twist in what he says he learned. He said if you have the cartons in a bag (or, I guess, in your hands), the worst Customs can do to you is to confiscate your cigarettes -- but if they're in your suitcase, the officers can fine you as well as confiscate the cigarettes.

While that was one heckuva way to start his holiday, at least they didn't arrest him.

But there's something else they didn't do which stokes curiosity. Why didn't they say something about maybe allowing him to pay the import duty on the excess cigarettes? Would they have done so had he openly approached them and asked? Who knows?

The only remotely comparable experience I've had was quite a few years ago when I flew in from somewhere outside Thailand into Don Muang Airport. Before leaving the airport wherever I was, I realized I had one carton too many cigarettes; I had bought two cartons to bring back with me, forgetting I had already bought one carton and put it in my suitcase.

I didn't want to just throw them away, so I put all three cartons into a plastic bag. No, I had no intention of paying the import duty -- some foolish amount, no doubt -- but figured I'd just approach an officer in the red channel and tell him (or her) straight out that I had one too many cartons and that I would gladly give up the extra one, thinking at least maybe one of the officers might smoke that brand. So, that's exactly what I did.

The officer peered at me, curious, as I approached. He asked what I wanted. I told him about the extra carton -- all three cartons were still in the opaque bag, so I opened the top and showed him, asking him (very politely, by the way) if I could just surrender the extra one with no fuss.

He looked at me a moment, smiling, then said words to the effect, "Do you know how long we both would be tied up, how much paperwork I would have to do, and how many forms you would have to sign?" He obviously was talking about were I to ask to pay the import duty, so I was rather confused. Then he added -- much to my surprise -- "I can't just take it without doing other paperwork for confiscation, and it would be the same. So, you're free to go."

Pleased at that pleasant little outcome, I started to walk away, but then it struck me I was at the entrance of the Customs area, meaning I still would have to run the gantlet, so to speak, of a number of other Customs officers along the passageway -- none of whom would necessarily know I had already spoken with an officer so might stop me and not turn out to be so nice. So, I turned back to the officer and mentioned that little possibility. He chuckled and told me to come with him.

And he escorted me right past the officer and actually out into the main hall beyond Customs, saying once we were there, "Now you're safe! See you!"

Maybe the laws have changed. Maybe my friend triggered some profile alarm. Maybe there is a crackdown, whether temporary or long ongoing. Or maybe, as Bullet suspects, it was a scam.

He suspects the security officer knew good and well what would happen and somehow signaled or contacted the Customs officers to stop Bullet and his buddy.

In any case, it appears these days it's better not to even to try to bring in over the allowed amount of tobacco and alcohol products. At least not by air. (Land border checkpoints are often rather more lax, in my experience, in this regard; not once have I been even merely spoken to by any customs officials when I've made land crossings into Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia, including not by Customs officers in those countries.)

A word about attire. Thais generally are considerably more culturally sensitive about how people dress, especially in formal and work environments. I know no one wants to dress up to board a plane (well, most people don't), and I know some folks like to put on their T-shirts, cut-offs, and flip-flops, which is fine. That kind of clothing is indeed comfortable.

But even if you have nothing to hide, there's no way to know whether you'll be singled out to be checked, perhaps just randomly. And if some question does arise, the officers (whether at Passport Control or Customs) will almost certainly instinctively far less likely to allow you even to ask questions, much less argue with them, than might be the case were you in attire a little less casual -- even a pair of jeans and a polo shirt.

Let me give an example. On a recent visa run to Cambodia, when I returned, the guy in front of me not only was dressed extremely casually, but he wasn't even wearing any kind of shoes at all. His white T-shirt was somewhat dirty. His shorts were extremely ragged cutoffs and had some small holes in them, revealing his underwear. I guess the immigration officer gave him fewer than 30 days, because the guy looked at his passport and tried -- very politely, I must say -- to ask about it. But the officer just looked at him stonily, completely silent. When the guy started to speak again, the officer glared at him and barked at him a single word: "Go!"

"Oh, boy," I thought, "just my luck to get some officer having a really bad day."

But then it was my turn. Handed over my passport, greeting the officer politely. He promptly stamped me in for 30 days and handed back my passport, without signing in the chop on my arrival card in the space provided for that purpose.

(I know, I know -- I'm the only person I know of that has ever had a problem with this, but I did a year or two ago when I went down to Immigration here in Bangkok to get a visa extension. Took some scraping, bowing, and apologizing, plus intervention by a lady captain, to get me past the problem, which was compounded by the fact, according to the captain, that he ever had processed me at the airport when I had entered not only had failed to initial my arrival card, but failed to log me into the computer records. But she added it would have been a lot less trouble had the officer initialed the card, though she didn't explain why. She explicitly told me to check this detail every time I re-entered and to ask for it if the officer forgot, adding again having it sure made life easier for me and Immigration.)

Back to the Cambodian border. I checked, and the officer hadn't initialed the card, so I politely asked him to do so. He smiled quizzically, and asked why -- there was no one behind me, so he had time. I told him what the captain had said, and he promptly initialed my arrival card, adding he didn't see how that would help had he forgotten to book me into the record.

The point is, I not only was polite -- as the guy in front of me had been -- but I also was in a clean sports shirt and informal slacks. Yes, I was wearing my black sandals -- but I wear very dark socks with them, which he didn't see anyway, I don't guess.

Maybe that shouldn't make any difference, but I've seen and experienced it enough and witnessed others getting into hot water for no real apparent reason other than their sloppy appearance.

I'm quite certain my friend was presentably dressed; he knows the drill -- after all, he does have a Thai wife. And he's invariably polite. Which just adds to the puzzle of his unhappy experience.

The first reports "Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee said yesterday that inflation would not be a problem for Thailand, and that the economy is on track to grow 6% in 2008, in line with an official target." The second says "The time is right for foreign investors to invest in Thailand as the economy will see limited effects from high oil prices and the US sub-prime problem, Industry Minister Suwit Khunkitti said yesterday."

Now, I'm in no position to say one way or the other whether the economy will grow or how much it might.

But a couple things the ministers were reported to have said did raise an eyebrow. In the first article, the Finance Minister also said "we are not aware that inflation will be a problem in Thailand" (which, if the report from the Bank of Thailand that inflation is expected to fall in the 4-5% range, a report also cited in the article, might be true).

Wonder where the Finance Minister and the folks at the BoT do their grocery shopping. Four or five per cent for the entire year? Maybe they don't eat rice.

As for the Industry Minister's reported remarks, most of them fall in that vast area of "beyond me," as a great many things are for me, so I'll take them at face value. However, the story says he insists, among other things, that rising global oil prices will cause limited effect on the Thai economy, and that is far less convincing. He did say Thailand cut its imports of oil last year, and that alternative fuels are helping.

However, all fuels are going up, up, up, as are foods, getting dearer by the day. And the increase sure is well beyond the few paltry per cent the news story says he says. For all fuels, including natural gas and biofuels.

Limited impact? Tell that to the three people I know who've sold their vehicles in the last few months because they simply either could no longer afford the fuel or, if they could afford it, could no longer justify the expense. Or maybe tell that to the several people whom I know who were saving up to buy a vehicle, starting their saving well before oil prices went into a vertical climb. People who have wistfully not just put the dream on the back burner, but taken it off the stove entirely for the foreseeable future, resigning themselves to maybe never being able to afford to actually drive a car even if they can afford to buy one.

And -- oh: tell it to the airlines; maybe they'll stop running up fuel surcharges so often and so much.

And all this stuff darned well does have an impact on tourism, and countless bits of anecdotal evidence suggest the effect is rather more than might reasonably be called "limited." Do a poll of bar and restaurant owners, especially those that cater to foreign tourists. Without a single exception, those I've spoken with have said that while they're not going broke, numbers and average spending per customer are noticeably down. (And yes, they know that their own price hikes -- necessary as they are -- give some people reason to pause before ordering that second drink or a dessert.)

Look, I'm not blaming Thailand for any of these events; there isn't a country on the planet escaping the effects of rising food and fuel prices. True, some aren't being hit as hard as others, and Thailand, as a net food exporter, clearly falls into a not-so-badly-hit country, and if oil imports did indeed fall last year, that can be only good news.

But the effects have already gone well beyond the merely limited. Remember my report that my neighbor paid something approaching 70% more for exactly the same amount of the same kind of rice a week or two ago compared to what she had paid barely over a month before? An 70% increase is limited? -- Not.

Take another example. Underberg is a German alcohol that comes in tiny bottles for an individual serving. A year or so ago, it ran about 44 baht per bottle, wholesale. But for the past five or six months it's been well north of 50 baht -- despite the parallel strengthening of the baht. I think the current price is around 53 baht per bottle, and that's a substantial increase.

Maybe the ministers are absolutely right on the macro level, but it's sure hard to see how their conclusions relate to street level.

And it's a pipe dream to think that a considerable number of tourists are going to be looking at this closely as they decided where to holiday, for how long, and how much they can budget. Or maybe they'll decide not to go anywhere at all.

Saw a report on Channel News Asia that the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA) has announced the agency will build the world's tallest observation tower in the world, adding that several possible sites have already been identified and are under consideration.

As the television report was scant on details -- you know, "How tall will it be?", "What are the candidate sites, anyway?", "How much mullah are we talking about dropping just so people can get a bird's eye view -- reportedly of the city, but likely of its ever=present blanket of pollution?", etc. -- I checked several sources online.

Found a few references, but, like the Channel News Asia story, they all referred to a report in The Nation that gave no more details, either.

I sort of have to wonder about whether this is really a good idea, in terms of investment. Bangkok already boasts the Baiyoke Towers, each with its own observation deck way up high, certainly high enough to have a rather commanding view -- on a clear day -- of much of the sprawling metropolis. Given that Bangkok is flat as a pancake, I wonder how much extra thrill can be attained by a view that exceeds the 70 or so floors of the taller of the two Baiyoke Towers. Sure, with each extra floor the range one can see is extended, slightly -- theoretically.

The last time I was in the taller Baiyoke Tower, it happened to be an exceptionally clear day. I looked through a pair of the powerful mounted binoculars available, but discovered I could see no further with them than I could with the naked eye; the only difference was that stuff was magnified, but the limit of visibility remained essentially the same either way.

I guess this sort of thing can be a money-spinner. There's an observation tower in Macau that soars over 60 floors high, making it by far the tallest building in the enclave, and it sure gets a whole bunch of (paying) visitors. It has some particular advantages.

For one thing, the floor of the observation deck provides a thrilling view straight down. Much of the floor is made of alternating narrow ribbons of metal support beams and clear glass or plastic, with a few places sporting only the clear stuff, giving a rather disconcerting felling you're standing on air as you peer down some 200 meters to the ground far below.

Another offering is bungee-jumping. Now, this particular thrill has never appealed to me, unlike skydiving. When you skydive, you have two parachutes, so if the main chute fails to deploy, you at least have a Plan B available in the form of the emergency chute strapped to your chest. When you bungee-jump, you have one . . . well, basically, one oversized rubber band. If it breaks when you hit the end, it's "Bye-bye, Bubba!" With some fancy-dancy parachutes, you can steer a bit, and, more importantly, touch down as lightly as a feather. In bungee-jumping, you hit the end of the "rubber band" and hope your doggone thigh bone doesn't get yanked out of your hip socket. And even if that little thrill doesn't occur, your left dangling upside-down, completely helpless, dependent on the crane operator far above to lower you softly to the ground, where ground crew help you get turned right-side up and settled on your feet. Assuming vertigo doesn't cause you to collapse in a helpless heap (weeping?) anyway.

But there sure are a lot of folks who like that sort of thing, if the long lines I saw on my one visit to the former Portuguese colony's observation tower was any indication. (And to think -- those fools paid good money to risk having their butts dislocated!!!)

Thailand being a leading place for contracts going to the lowest bidder who then blatantly ignores whatever construction requirements are written into the contract -- you know, "Why use no more than 20% sand in the cement when I can get by using 50% at a lower price, fattening my pay-off substantially? -- To hell with bothersome stuff like mere, pesky safety!" -- I don't think I even want a "glass floor." The builder might try to get by with, say, a couple hundred layers of kitchen plastic wrap. And bungee-jumping? You kidding me, or what? Even if I trusted the rubber band, which I might, if it were imported from a bungee-jumping-loving country such as New Zealand, I sure as hell wouldn't trust the hook or peg provided by that same thoughtful, cost-saving contractor! Sure, if the rubber band breaks I probably won't have my but twisted out of shape, at least not in the remaining milliseconds before I crashed unceremoniously -- and fatally -- into the ground!

Yeah, I think I'll continue to be satisfied with the view afforded of The Big Mango during take-off and landing at the airport. . . .

One reason for the sustained prices of small cars is a little surprising in one way, but maybe not in another. That is, car manufacturers in the U.S. (and the report is U.S.-specific) have been slow to respond to the soaring demand for small cars. The surprising part is that some portion of those manufacturers' sales have been outside the U.S., where demand for small cars was long higher than it was in their domestic market. The unsurprising aspect is the explosion in oil prices, which caught most people off guard, stimulating demand for any vehicle that has relatively high fuel efficiency.

Recently, I've seen more and more truly small cars, as opposed to the popular mid-sized Japanese sedans (some of which are reasonably fuel-efficient in their own right), though there are plenty of those wheeling around the streets even in today's expensive petrol climate. If the price of petrol locally continues it's steep climb -- as some forecasters are predicting it will, perhaps reaching US$150 per barrel by year's end -- then we'll likely see more and more sub-compacts such as the Austin Mini Cooper tooling around the sois.

But there are other, less obvious reasons for the increasing price for small cars. One is that the profit margin, at least in dollar terms, provides less wiggle room for a dealer than the price of a bigger car or SUV gives. And car dealers are, after all, folks trying to make a living, not provide charity. The problem for us as buyers is it's difficult to know what a dealer's true wholesale price is, as dealers love to show potential customers little pieces of fiction they claim are "dealers' invoices" that are no such thing -- they're carefully crafted slips of paper that are plausible in the fictitious numbers they show. Lenders are reluctant to admit this, too -- after all, if you don't buy the car, then you won't finance it, and the lender misses out on the loan. But on rare occasion you can worm it out of your banker. And that will likely show a considerably smaller difference between the amount the dealer had to fork over and what he's asking you than you probably would imagine.

Another reason is found in the resale value of these cars compared to that of larger petrol hogs. A few weeks ago I read about one particular car, a Mini Cooper, as I recall, and after five years it sells, on average for a stunning 90-95% of its original price. (I should add I also read in a different source the estimated value after three years averages just over 60% of its original price -- still not bad, compared to a lot of other cars.)

Work it out. Say you pay US$20,000 (a figure I plucked out of thin air, but it'll do) then sell your car five years later for US$18,000, or 90% of the purchase price. You will have paid only US$2,000 for having the car for that whole time -- or just US$1.10 per day (or about 34.73 baht, in real money).

Sure, there are operating expenses, maintenance, and repairs that add up, but at least the operating expenses will be lower than those that come with bigger vehicles.

I wish it wasn't absolutely crazy to drive in this country, as I'd love to have a Mini Cooper or classic VW Beetle. (I owned several VW Beetles many years ago in the States.) But if I had one, I'd be scared to drive it any further than the Square -- never getting off my sub-soi and Sukhumvit Soi 22! ;-)

It's coming up on 9:00 A.M. and I just had a wonderful phone call from "English" Richard -- more commonly referred to (rather unkindly, if accurately) as "Fat" Richard, distinguishing him from "Burma" Richard, another Squaronian -- during which Richard briefed me on the latest regarding Marc, a great Aussie.

Marc is a professor and is returning to Thailand to take up a post at a university here in Bangkok -- for a splendid six entire months. (Ladies, get thirsty!) He'll be arriving about midnight to stay a couple days here before popping down to Singapore to deliver a lecture there, after which he'll return to settle in here for the long haul. well, relatively speaking, anyway; he may eventually retire here. Richard kindly invited me to join him and Marc for an evening meal as soon as he can arrange it to Marc's convenience. (I'm easy.)

A minute after learning that delightful news, I was surprised to see that Richard was calling me again. This time he had the best possible news about Marc that he had forgotten to pass along in our previous call.

Several years ago, Marc was diagnosed with cancer. Terminal. But somehow he learned of some experimental treatment -- actually, if I understood it correctly, it wasn't a new form of treatment but rather a novel approach to using existing treatments. The doctors told him there were no guarantees, and he even had to formally release them from any liability, which of course he did. After all, he had absolutely nothing to lose, since what his own doctor had told him was that he was a dead duck but his body hadn't figured that out yet.

Right from the start, the treatment seemed to have good effects, but the doctors were quite rightly and understandably extremely guarded. After all, Marc was serving as Mr. Guinea Pig.

As is standard in such cases, Marc has been getting regular check-ups. As most of you know, the normal time for doctors to declare a person actually free of The Big C is five years.

Marc, it turns out, had his latest check-up just last week. While Richard didn't specifically say this is the five-year mark and I forgot, in my excitement, to ask, he did specifically say the medicos told Marc he's cancer-free -- so I'm assuming that means five years have passed; I lose track of time.

But even if he has a ways to go before reaching that milestone, the report is still quite encouraging, as it's one more increasingly upbeat report; all his follow-ups have been way positive.

Though Marc is very much a creature of habit who mostly hangs out at New Square One when he's around so isn't known to all Squaronians, those of us who do know him put him right up there at the top of the list of Great Guy Squaronians.

This is big enough news to merit its own story instead of being subsumed into my regular Washington Square news reports.

I'm always delighted to see Marc, but I'll be especially thrilled to shake his hand this time!

If you know Marc and see someone who knows him, please pass along Richard's report -- and thanks.

Here's another story meriting its own headline instead of getting buried in the Washington Square news one.

In recent days, an entirely new, and very intriguing, new approach to the field of mathematics has been introduced.

Now, most of us Squaronians follow exchange rates, at least loosely, but a bit more closely these days, during which some currencies – especially the Yank dollar – have lost value compared to the baht, of interest if our incomes are in those other currencies (as mine is).

Happily for those of us whose incomes are in Yank dollars, in the last few days the baht has weakened a little bit, from a high last week (according to the figures I saw, anyway) of 31.43 baht to the buck, while over the weekend I saw in the Bangkok Post it had lost 26 satang to the dollar, meaning at Friday’s close (I think that’s the figure the newspaper uses), it took 31.69 baht to buy US$1.00. In other words, the baht lost slightly over 8/1000th’s of 1% of its value vis-à-vis the greenback.

Enter the new math. It makes estimating the impact on the costs of doing business quite simple. Here’s hot it works:

(1.) Take the base number, 31.43
(2.) Round it off, starting at the left, leaving “1.43.”
(3.) Now, round it off from the right twice, leaving “1.00.”
(4.) Now factor in the change in the rate, i.e., “,26.”
(5.) Round that to “.25.”
(6.) Calculate the percentage shift in this new paradigm and you obtain “1/4th.”
Meaning, under this brilliant scheme, the baht actually lost a stunning ONE QUARTER of its value versus the dollar in a matter of days, driving prices up across the board. (Now you see where this is going -- right???)

With this disastrous result for anyone whose income is in baht, businesses all over the Kingdom must be reacting fast and furiously in a mad scramble to avoid financial ruination. And the only way to do that is to raise prices for goods and services by 25% across the board – like, I mean, now!

This new math had been closely-guarded proprietary Top Secret of Microsoft™, which uses the same basic approach in deciding prices for its software. You now, “Well inflation was only 3.00000000000000000000000001% last year, but let’s make that easy and round that off to an easier-to-use 5%. But even that’s awkward, so let’s round it up again, this time to the nearest whole 10. Ahhh – much better! We’ll bump prices up 10 per cent, including for unsold copies already in stores!”

But their secret was revealed when brilliant Squaronian spies broke the code and are sharing it (for a small consideration, you have to understand) all around the Kingdom.

So far, their identities are secret, but no doubt they’ll be hailed as heroes some day!

Back to the top [Tuesday, April 29, 2008]

Had a somewhat curious experience yesterday afternoon I also decided merits its own story.

As everyone knows, word has been percolating regarding the future of the Square. I recently heard that a company housed out of the way in the back east (The Emporium side) corner in a sort of sub-square hideaway has moved out.

I was walking towards the back on that side of the Square when I recalled what I had heard, and decided to look, figuring if the building is empty, I could enter the area, which previously was guarded.

I suppose the tenants rented the entire area, as several years ago I was strolling back that direction because I had heard there's a pleasant little garden opposite the company, but a very polite guard who spoke excellent English stopped me and explained entry to the area was restricted to employees, delivery people, and others doing business with the firm. Fair enough. I went on my way.

Imagine my surprise then when just as I got even with where the uniformed guard used to be stationed and got stopped by a guy in ordinary street clothes. Though the windows are tinted, it appeared the building is empty, and in any case, the parking area had a lone van backed up to the front, its back doors open. I supposed someone was loading up some remaining stuff, though I didn't see anyone around the van nor, indeed, anywhere in the area other than the guy.

He didn't speak English but his intent was clear. He lightly grabbed my upper arm and in Thai was saying "Cannot. Go." He wasn't rude, mind you, but he didn't exactly exude warmth. I did find it irksome when I started to turn away and he escorted -- although I was already outside the company area -- and again started to take my arm.

I walked ahead then looked over my shoulder, and was rather more irked the guy was still trailing me some distance behind, though he stopped in his tracks when he saw me looking.

I quickly dismissed my irritation but mused about it. It occurred to me the guy might have been a burglar or some such, but I had no sense of anything like that. I mean, it was broad daylight in plain view of anyone traveling east along the back of the Square from the direction of Soi 22. The company's double glass door were wide open with no visible evidence they had been tampered with, and the glass itself was intact.

In any case, I am foreign, so have no authority even as a citizen to make a fuss, and I certainly am unarmed, unless you count my cheap single-blade pocketknife with its mighty 2" blade a weapon. (Which I guess it technically is, but I sure wouldn't want my life to count on it!)

No, it's not important. I guess it struck me as much as it did since it took place against the backdrop of talks about The Square's future (or non-future).

By the way, I will have a bit more to pass along about the Square's situation in the regular Washington Square News story below.

Just a quick note that the talented and affable Dean Barrett -- whose Washington Square citizenship is under review by relevant authorities because in recent years he has been spending most of his time [and, more importantly from the points of view of the bar owners and ladies, money at Soi Cowboy and Nana Plaza! ;-)] -- is working on a sequel to his popular novel Skytrain to Murder and is coming along nicely.

Spoke with dean by phone a few days ago when he mentioned this, and I think he said he hopes to have it out by year's end. But maybe he said he wants to have a final draft ready to turn over to his publisher, and getting the thing actually printed and bound then out to the shops is a tedious, time-devouring process.

I've read most, if not all, Dean's works and enjoyed them thoroughly. His Memoirs of a Bangkok Warrior is a classic of its genre, as anyone fond of Vietnam Era-related fiction will attest.

I imagine Dean will have a book-signing party at the Texas Lone Staar once the book's in hand. And undoubtedly he'll not only sign books, but peddle 'em as well. Plus, of course, happily accept all donated libations!

A story in today's Bangkok Post headlined "Wat's happening?" (Get it? get it?? -- those headline writers at the Post sure do love punning headlines) revived that thought.

The basic story is pretty straightforward. UNESCO wants to list this famous wat as a World Heritage site, as the better-known Angkor Wat outside Siem Reap, Cambodia already is. Like it's brother down the road, Wat Preah Vihear is a centuries-old Khmer temple.

But now things get complicated. Thailand and Cambodia have long argued over just which country the wat is located. It's located on top of a straight-down cliff, and the World Court ruled -- 46 years ago -- it's inside Cambodia Since both countries recognize the court, you'd think that settled that.

But as recently as a year or two ago, as UNESCO's snail-paced process of getting the site heritage status, Thailand suddenly popped up reviving the dispute, if the media stories I saw at the time were to be believed.

No we come to today's report. It says both Thailand and Cambodia are confused why a meeting their representatives were to have with a UNESCO representative in Paris this coming weekend. A spokesman for the Thai government said no reason was given. And just to add to the murk, a Cambodian spokesman said they were never even invited in the first place. Now let's stir the pot a little more: the same Cambodian spokesman added there no dispute at all over the temple and its grounds being entirely within Cambodian territory.

Well, you see, even if the two countries have finally agreed the wat is indeed on Cambodian soil, the easiest way to reach it is through Thai territory -- and the two countries have a long-standing dispute about just where the exact border is in many places along their common frontier -- and, naturally, this particular little curling, winding, snaking stretch is smack dab in the middle of just one such stretch.

Seems I read in some earlier report on this issue that the amount of land in dispute is, at most, a few rai (a rai is about 40% of 1 acre or .16% of i hectare). We're not talking about the King Ranch here. You'd think the two countries would just divvy up the land, mark a new border, and be done with it, especially after nearly half a century.

And it gets even a little bit better. The Cambodians say not only did their never get an invite in the first place, but further that this particular subject has not been part of any discussions with the U.N. in recent months. On the other hand, Thailand's rep was reportedly all set to go (and, no doubt, sobbing at the thought of missing on on a 5-star, all-expenses paid holiday -- I mean "working trip" -- to the grand French capital).

Finally, both sides are bewildered why the U.N. has said one of its reps will travel to the two countries for separate consultations, especially if the meeting in Paris was -- allegedly -- all set.

As the old Harry Belafonte song says: "It was clear as mud -- but it covered the ground. . . ."

Saw a report that scientists in New Zealand are studying a dead squid whose eye measured bigger than a dinner plate, making it the largest known eye in the animal kingdom. [Then what's the largest known eye in the NON-animal kingdom???]

The squid was "caught in the Ross Sea off Antarctica's northern coast last year," quoting the story. [Hmmm. Just where are the frozen continents eastern, southern, and western coasts???]

It was quite enlightening to learn from a television news report regarding a regional dispute between two Southeast Asian nations that "both sides agreed to exchange views." [Definition of "exchange" from one online dictionary: "to give in return for something received." Then what is it if one side offers a view but the other doesn't? "Exchange" MEANS "both" or "several."]

Headline: "2 BASE jumpers arrested." The opening clause of the story: "A BASE jumper landed in trouble. . . ." [Huh??? What happened to the other jumper? Is he still aloft dangling from his parachute? Did he land not in trouble?]

Another television report unintentionally showed one engrained aspect of thought in these parts when included the information that the Malaysian official in charge of television coverage is threatening to cancel live television coverage of sessions of parliament because of the fracas that erupted during that august body's opening session this week. ["If we don't see a problem, then there isn't any problem."]

If you're a staunch capitalist then you're undoubtedly happy to learn that the Thai government has upheld its vow not to monkey around with rice market forces. [Of course, since a senior official announced a day or two ago the government also has a plan to help the poor either through subsidies for rice, or supplies of rice from government warehouses, we have to re-define "monkey around with."]

(On a more serious note, I need to add a story in yesterday's Bangkok Post headlined "Govt to sell rice stocks" reports the exact opposite. In other words, I haven't the faintest notion what will actually happen. But a report on Channel News Asia yesterday did feature a government spokesman who made a statement in Thai, which I don't understand -- but which the station translated as a statement to the effect the government won't intervene in the market. As usual, it's another one of those "who in the heck knows???" situations.)

This isn't the "New Math" I mentioned in an earlier story. But it's equally interesting. A Channel News Asia report this morning holds that 600 million Asians, or 1/4th the continent's total population of 4 billion, live on US$1.00 per day or less, i.e., in extreme poverty. [Huh??? I thought 1/4th of 4 billion was 1 billion -- not 6oo million. Silly me, I guess. Further, the commonly accepted estimated of the total population is about 3 billion -- even the satellite news channel has had a couple other reports in the last few days citing that figure. I guess a whole bunch of Asians must have been busy as the dickens about nine months ago if the population grew another billion in recent days! finally, isn't 1/4th of even 3 billion 750 million -- not 600 million???]

One big draw of Bangkok for tourists is the long-tail boats that serve as water taxis in the [few remaining] khlongs, or canals, and the mighty Chao Phraya River that courses through the metropolis. Foreign tourists, especially those from the West, have visions of Venice float through their heads once they learn these craft ply the waterways of this exotic capital.

Well, yes, there are indeed legions of these boats cruising around, and they can save you significant time traveling from one place to another, especially if both the starting and ending point are near the canal or river.

But we're not talking about the graceful gondolas of Italian romance, with their singing crews poling the boat idyllically over the surface of beautiful waters. Though Bangkok used to sport -- and merit -- the nickname "The Venice of the East," any connection between reality and the promise of that nickname is long gone.

For starters, the water in the canals and river are filthy; the times I've seen children swimming in a murky, polluted, filthy, trash-infested khlong, I've been amazed, wondering if they'll eventually turn into mutant ninja turtles or the Hulk.

And you won't find a happily caroling pole man here; the boats are powered by motors. Big motors. Loud motors. Smoke-belching motors. Hardly a pleasant aural backdrop to romancing Your True Love. Or even having a conversation at anything short of a shout.

Safety aboard? Water jackets or life preservers? Don't be silly, Child! Who's got the time to worry about safety? -- there's a baht to be made! And do you really expect the owners of the companies operating these boats to fork out the baht for luxuries such as life preservers -- even for the crew? Such naiveté.

The uninitiated can be forgiven for assuming that they'll at least be safe at the docks where passengers embark or disembark. After all, the boat's at a stop, safely moored to the pier, allowing you to step on or off the boat with ease.

The pilots don't even wait for the waters to calm before shouting at passengers leaving there to be quick about it and for waiting passengers on the dock to leap aboard the rocking craft right darned quick. And how can the crew secure the boat to the pier when there's not any rope?

Years ago I had an interview at a relatively distant location on Petchburi Road, which in those days, especially, often suffered traffic gridlock. Khlong Saen Saeb, one of Bangkok's major waterways, parallels the road the whole distance I needed to travel, so my buddy, who also had an interview at the same place, and I decided to take a water taxi. I had never been on one anyway, and though I had few illusions, I thought it might even be a little fun, and certainly a break from the drill of sitting fuming in traffic endlessly.

Well, can't say much for the "fun," but it certainly was a break from routine. When we boarded, we had to practically fall into the boat, hardly a graceful entrance. the scene was repeated in the opposite direction when we got to our stop. Our interviews done, we decided to go back the same way -- it was far faster than traveling by bus or taxi, I must say. Boarding for the return Grand Voyage proved to be the most, um, "exciting" phase of the entire experience for me.

My buddy boarded directly ahead of me, then I stepped out into space towards the bobbing gunwale -- and of course timed it wrong, my foot and lower leg coming down between a concrete wall sticking up out of the water and the gunwale. With the boat headed towards crashing into the concrete. With my leg apparently doomed to be caught in between.

I frantically twisted through the air, falling on top of a poor terrified Thai lady -- it was bad enough to have anyone fall on her, but a foreigner??? -- spare me! As I plunged through the void, my buddy snatched me in time to yank me and, more importantly, my endangered extremities, out of the path of the crashing boat just as it began clamping down on my leg. (Luckily, I got only a minor cut, plus bone and skin bruises from the incident.)

Even before I managed to struggle off the screaming woman's lap, the pilot threw it into high gear and sped away from the dock -- the people behind me trying to board; they got left standing.

Another practical consideration before deciding to experience the thrills of traveling by water taxi is it route. Or, more precisely, where the docks are. Let me explain.

I don't know if municipal bus drivers taught this to the water taxi pilots or vice versa, but the existence of bus stops and water-tax piers isn't necessarily an indication a bus or water taxi will actually stop at those spots. That answer to the philosophical question of "To stop, or not to stop?" rests entirely up to the drivers and pilots, who routinely speed right on by, and tough luck to anyone aboard who plans to get off at Point A and to anyone hapless would-be passenger left coughing in the black clouds of smoke invariably spewing out the buses' and water taxis' exhaust pipes. And they'll routinely speed right on by even when there are few, perhaps even no, passengers aboard their transport craft.

When I taught at Srinakharinwirot University back in the 1990's, which is a short walk from Khlong Saen Saeb, several of us regularly went to a open-air Thai restaurant immediately beside both the khlong and a public pier. Sometimes we amused ourselves by betting on whether a fast-moving water taxi would stop or just keep on chugging into the distance. I soon learned if could bet either way and be right about half the time. No joke. Only half.

But, if you're a daredevil and don't mind the possibility of missing a crucial appointment, such as meeting your newest love on your very first date, as the water taxis cruise right on by as you stand on the dock, utterly helpless to do one damned thing about it -- by all means, try it.

And it's probably a good idea to update your medical and life insurance coverage ahead of time. . . . ;-)