Free 4 November Zoom Webinar on Indian Literature

Thammasat University students interested in literature, India, environmental science, ecology, climate change, sustainable development, and related subjects may find it useful to participate in a free Free 4 November Zoom webinar of the Indian author Amitav Ghosh speaking on The Nutmeg’s Curse: Non-human Voices and More-than-human Stories.

The event, on Wednesday, 4 November 2026 at noon Bangkok time, is organized by Tokyo College, the University of Tokyo, Japan.

Students are invited to register for the event at this link.

The TU Library collection includes books by and about Amitav Ghosh.

The event announcement explains:

Abstract

Are humans the only beings that are endowed with the ability to communicate and make meaning?

For a long time it was assumed that this was axiomatically true.

But one effect of our increasingly climate-disrupted world is that it has made us aware that our minds and bodies are deeply intertwined with many other organisms, entities and forces.

As we look back now on the historical trajectory that has brought us to the point of a planetary catastrophe, we cannot but recognize that our plight is in large part a consequence of the ways in which certain classes of humans have actively muted all other beings by representing them as brutes, creatures whose presence on earth is solely material.

This lecture examines some of these entanglements through the story of the nutmeg tree.

Program

Lecturer

Amitav GHOSH (Writer)

Moderator

Trent BROWN (Associate Professor, Tokyo College)

Amitav Ghosh is an Indian-American writer.

Ghosh’s novels examine the nature of national and personal identity, particularly of the people of India and South Asia.

He has written historical fiction and non-fiction works discussing topics such as colonialism and climate change.

Dr. Ghosh lectures at the Saxena Center for Contemporary South Asia, Brown University, Rhode Island, the United States of America, and is an invited professor at Tokyo College, University of Tokyo.

Earlier this year, he informed an interviewer:

I honestly cannot say whether fiction is uniquely capable of conveying the urgency of the planetary crisis or not.

However, I happen to be a writer of fiction so certainly for me this is the only way that I can contend with the various intersecting crises that now be set the planet.

But I would like to stress that for me this is not some kind of program as such.

I have always thought of myself as a writer who tries to write about the realities of the world and these crises are now the most evident and obvious aspect of that reality […]

I do believe that no single system of knowledge has a monopoly on truth.

There are many systems of knowledge and they all have their strengths and limitations.

Mechanistic approaches to knowledge can tell us about many aspects of the world, yet at the same time that approach like others, has its limitations.

What is important, in my view, is to try and put these various approaches to knowledge into conversation with each other […]

The Calcutta of the 1970s and ’80s was very different from the Kolkata of today. It was a city in turmoil, where strikes, morchas and bandhs were commonplace, and there were long spells of load shedding pretty much on a daily basis.

It was a city where the aftershocks of Partition could still be felt, most noticeably in the flow of refugees, not only from Eastern Bengal but also from Burma and many other places.

But at the same time it was also the city of Satyajit Ray and many other great filmmakers, artists and writers.

Today’s Kolkata is very different in some ways, although the city still retains many aspects of the past.

Brooklyn too has changed very much over the three decades that I have lived there.

When I first moved there in 1998, there were very few skyscrapers or even tall buildings.

Now when I look out of the window I can hardly recognize the cityscape in front of me.

There are dozens of skyscrapers and it looks no different from midtown Manhattan.

Yet Brooklyn too retains its distinctiveness […]

Our principal responsibility is to be true to the changing realities around us. It is to tell the stories of the world that is coming into being in all its terror and its strangeness.

He explained to another journalist the significant of nutmeg in his writing:

Well, I think the nutmeg’s history encapsulates the history of the planet in some bizarre way—the modern history of the nutmeg.

Because really, the nutmeg was a gift of volcanic earth.

It was a gift of incredible forests, of Maluku.

And in the end, for more than a millennium, it made the people of this tiny archipelago, the Banda Islands, rich and prosperous, and they had good lives.

They were rich.

They were great traders.

They were trading across the oceans.

But in the end, it brought doom upon them.

All that prosperity and wealth was really a kind of mirage, because ultimately those people were just massacred by the Dutch colonialists.

It was one of the first early modern genocides. So the people of the Banda Islands became among the earliest victims of what you might call the resource curse.

And in a sense, that’s exactly the curse that’s fallen upon the entire planet, and it’s come about now because we’ve treated the planet as a sort of inert repository of resources for a very long time.

But the planet is striking back, you might say, almost vindictively at us […]

Yes, I think that’s one of the myths of modernity.

You always hear people talking about how human beings have become independent of the Earth and so on, but in fact, it’s just a complete myth, because after all, fossil fuels are things of the Earth.

And we are completely dependent on fossil fuels today.

I mean, I’m just looking around this studio.

Every single thing in this studio runs on fossil fuel energy.

Today it’s not just our lighting or even the cars.

Even our food comes from fossil fuels.

You know, essentially, all these fertilizers, what are they?

Huge amounts of fossil fuels.

And you look around at—all around you—which is the most common material in this room?

It’s probably some kind of plastic.

Again, from fossil fuels.

So in a way, our lives have become so intertwined with these fossil fuels that we’ve stopped even noticing the degree to which we are dependent on these things […]

In Asia, Africa, I would say Latin America also, climate change is not seen in the way that it’s seen in the West.

In the West, climate change is conceived of as a technocratic thing, a technological thing, a sort of techno-scientific thing.

So when you get these COP meetings, who are the people who are there?

They’re basically a lot of technocrats, bureaucrats, economists, and now increasingly also billionaires of various kinds, big corporations, and so on.

If you go anywhere in Africa or Asia and speak to ordinary people and say, “What is climate change all about?” they’ll say it’s all about keeping us poor.

It’s all about the great disparity that’s occurred in the world during the period of colonialism.

So what I’m saying is actually just the common sense that prevails outside the West […]

Free 4 November Webinar on APEC in Shenzhen

Thammasat University students interested in economics, East Asian studies, business, political science, international relations, diplomacy, soft power, human rights, sociology, and related subjects may find it useful to participate in a free 4 November Zoom webinar on From Connectivity to Collective Action: What Can APEC Deliver in Shenzhen and Beyond?

The event, on Wednesday, 4 November 2026 at 9am Bangkok time, is organized by the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore.

APEC stands for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, an inter-governmental forum established in 1989 to promote free trade, economic growth, and regional cooperation across the Pacific Rim.

Key Facts

  • Headquarters: Singapore (coordinated by the APEC Secretariat)
  • Member Economies:

Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan (Chinese Taipei), Thailand, the United States, and Viet Nam.

  • Global Impact:

APEC members represent nearly 40% of the world’s population, roughly half of global trade, and about 60% of global GDP.

What APEC Does

  • Trade Liberalization:

Works to reduce tariffs and remove trade or investment barriers between member economies.

  • Business Facilitation:

Streamlines customs procedures, aligns regional standards, and supports initiatives like the APEC Business Travel Card for faster short-term business travel.

  • Consensus-Driven:

Unlike binding trade blocs, APEC operates on non-binding commitments and dialogue, allowing economies to cooperate voluntarily.

The APEC China 2026 will be a year-long hosting of APEC meetings, which will conclude with the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in November 2026.

It will be the third time China hosted the summit, having previously hosted in 2001 and 2014.

The TU Library collection includes books on diverse aspects of APEC.

Students are invited to register for the event at this link.

The event webpage explains:

About the Seminar

As APEC leaders prepare to meet in Shenzhen, the Asia-Pacific faces an increasingly challenging economic environment marked by growing protectionism, geopolitical tensions, supply-chain disruptions and rapid technological change.

Against this backdrop, China’s APEC 2026 priorities of openness, innovation and cooperation offer an important opportunity to strengthen regional economic integration and practical cooperation.

This seminar will bring together representatives from government, business and the APEC community to discuss the expected outcomes of the Shenzhen summit and their implications for the wider Asia-Pacific.

The discussion will examine how APEC can advance connectivity, trade and investment, supply-chain resilience, digital transformation and inclusive growth.

Looking beyond the 2026 Leaders’ Meeting, the seminar will also consider a broader question: how can APEC translate high-level commitments into meaningful collective action and remain relevant in an increasingly fragmented global economy?

About the Speakers

Mr. Eduardo Pedrosa is the Executive Director of the APEC Secretariat.

Mr. Kok Ping Soon is the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF). SBF represents more than 34,000 companies, as well as key local and foreign business chambers.

Ms. Shiumei Lin is the Vice President for Corporate Affairs overseeing UPS Government Affairs, Sustainability, Community Relations, and Strategic Communications in the Asia Pacific Region.  

About the Discussant

Mr. Alex Parle is the Executive Vice President of National Center for APEC. He joined the National Center for APEC as Program Manager in July 2003 and held several policy and program roles before being named Executive Vice President in 2013.

An article posted this month on the website of the Lowy Institute explains:

APEC’s modest agenda

The organisation has weathered discord before, but this year leaves little time to bridge the divide before Shenzhen.

The 21 members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC (Opens in new window)) are getting ready to conclude another year of modest achievements.

The agenda for the upcoming Leaders’ Summit in Shenzhen this month continues to shrink.

Participants are also passing up the opportunity to meet up in person.

The reasons for such meagre outcomes are many.

APEC typically struggles with delivering concrete outcomes.

The organisation has no negotiating mandate.

Instead, members gather in various workstreams across the year to “incubate ideas” in tracks including trade and investment, structural reform, and food security.

There is a separate process for finance ministers, and the business community also has a related agenda of activities.

This sprawling agenda has continuously expanded since the launch of APEC in 1989 with 12 members.

Every year, the organisation’s annual and rotating host adjusts the agenda to suit their interests.

China has been the host for 2026 with the theme (Opens in new window) “Building an Asia-Pacific Community to Prosper Together,” around the priorities of openness, innovation, and cooperation.

These themes are under more pressure than ever before.

The shifts in geopolitics, which Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney described as a “rupture (Opens in new window)” earlier this year, might well have led to even greater engagement within the organisation.

After all, if there was ever a moment when incubating ideas mattered, it would be now as all the APEC economies have been buffeted by rapidly changing economic tensions.

    The gaps between members remain wide with very limited time to resolve outstanding concerns.

Crucially, other than APEC, there are few venues where the 21 members can regularly gather in a non-binding forum.

Government officials should have been eager to lean on APEC as an opportunity to share their experiences with one another amid disruption.

However, the membership of APEC has made this task immeasurably more difficult. In 2026, having China serve as host in an institution that includes the United States and Russia has not been a recipe for success.

All three are at odds with one another and geopolitical rivalries that cross many members have made cooperation on even relatively benign topics harder than ever.

APEC has struggled in the past to reach consensus on key outcomes.

In 2018, an impasse between China and the US meant that the organisation could not issue a Leaders’ Statement at the end of the year of activities.

In 2023, APEC trade ministers also could not reach agreement given disagreements on language used to describe the situation in Ukraine.

In 2025, APEC members had to issue a very stripped-down Leaders’ Statement.

Getting an agreement on the Leaders’ Statement for 2026 is also going to be tricky.

The gaps between members remain wide with very limited time to resolve outstanding concerns […]

Given the economic turbulence caused by American actions in 2026, the APEC meetings represent a rare chance for other members to better understand US intentions and to gain insights in the strategies used by other members to cope with rapid changes in the economic environment.

But when high-level figures are absent, this is a missed opportunity for engagement.

APEC members might also be keen to discuss policy responses from China.

Yet China has also been making unhelpful changes to APEC processes that support cooperation, such as moving some meetings online, removing certain sideline openings for high-level bilateral meetings, and waiting until very late in the process to confirm the timing of some key events.

Despite being ideally set up to manage trade and economic disruption by encouraging non-binding discussions, APEC has simply struggled.

With limited progress expected by the Leaders’ Summit in mid-November, members are instead already turning to next year when Vietnam takes over as chair.

Perhaps a different host in a different year can better deliver the APEC Putrajaya Vision 2040 which pledged (Opens in new window) to achieve an “open, dynamic, resilient, and peaceful Asia-Pacific community for the prosperity of all its people and future generations.”

Free 2 November Zoom Webinar On the Enhanced Games

Thammasat University students interested in sport, business, economics, allied health sciences, education, sociology, and related subjects may find it useful to participate in a 2 November Zoom webinar on Dope and Glory: The disruption and legitimation of the Enhanced Games.

The event, on Monday, 2 November 2026 at 7pm Bangkok time, is hosted by Loughborough University, the United Kingdom.

The Enhanced Games (TEG) is a multi-sport event.

Founded by Australian businessman, it allows athletes to use performance-enhancing substances without being subject to drug tests; organizers claim these substances must be United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and used under medical supervision.

Reactions from the sporting world, scientific community, and media outlets have generally been negative, with commentators highlighting the safety risks of encouraging performance-enhancing drug use.

The first event took place on 24 May 2026 in Las Vegas, Nevada, and included competitions in swimming, athletics, and weightlifting.

The TU Library collection includes books about diverse aspects of drugs in sport.

Students are invited to register at this link.

The event website explains:

This public lecture traces the emergence of the Enhanced Games, a controversial multi-sport event that openly embraces the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Drawing on our first-hand observations from attending the inaugural games in Las Vegas and our latest empirical research, we explore how this disruptive event is attempting to legitimise itself and normalise doping.

We conclude by considering the broader implications of the Enhanced Games for the future of sport.

Speakers:

Dr. Alex Thurston is a Lecturer in Sport Management in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University, England.

Dr. Mathew Dowling joined the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences in 2024. He is a senior lecturer in sport management.

Earlier this year, the British Medical Journal posted an article online:

Enhanced Games: Bold claims, weak evidence, and serious risks

The games amounted to a large scale, uncontrolled experiment in which athletes bore the risk of unpredictable health consequences, writes Ian Boardley

The Enhanced Games, held on 24 May, were presented as a radical re-imagining of elite sport, in which athletes openly use performance enhancing drugs under medical supervision.

Organisers claim that this model-combining health assessments, clinician prescribed regimens, and independent oversight-protects athletes while generating valuable clinical insights.

However, these assurances sit uneasily alongside substantial evidence of harm, particularly from androgenic anabolic steroids.

Widespread drug use was openly reported: 91% of athletes used testosterone or testosterone esters, 29% used other anabolic steroid agents, 62% used stimulants, and 41% used erythropoietin, alongside many other substances.

Rather than offering a controlled and safe environment, the games risked exposing athletes to substantial and poorly understood health risks.

The limited performance gains make it even harder to justify the risk: only swimmer Ben Proud exceeded a current world record, assisted by a swimsuit prohibited in World Aquatics competition.

To justify their approach, organisers argue that medically supervised enhancement could level the “genetic lottery” and create a transparent, regulated system for pushing the limits of human performance.

They also emphasise that drug use was lawful, restricted to substances approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and prescribed by licensed clinicians.

In the US, physicians can legally prescribe drugs off label for indications other than what they were approved for.

Athletes were enrolled in a scientific study enabling the supervised use of substances that would otherwise be prohibited.

These arrangements suggest the games rely on jurisdictional and regulatory workarounds.

Despite strong rhetoric around medical oversight and safety, organisers have provided limited detail on how risks were mitigated or whether safeguards were sufficiently robust.

They also suggested that the Games would generate meaningful “clinical data” to evaluate enhancement protocols.

However, the proposed methodology more closely resembled a non-randomised interventional-observational study than a clinical trial.

The absence of randomisation, lack of a true control group, and reliance on highly individualised multi-drug regimens substantially limit the ability to draw causal inferences about safety or efficacy.

As such, claims of advancing scientific knowledge were overstated and risk misleading both participants and the public about the nature, validity, and clinical value of the data generated.

Androgenic anabolic steroids were central to proposed enhancement protocols, despite extensive evidence they can cause multisystem harm.

The absence of robust, controlled human studies limits the possibility of developing evidence-based monitoring or screening strategies capable of protecting athletes.

Much of the available evidence on the effects of using multiple substances at beyond natural doses consists of observational studies in recreational bodybuilding contexts, often relying on self-reported drug use.

This constrains the quality and interpretability of the data, making it difficult to determine which specific compounds, combinations, or doses are responsible for observed adverse effects.

The health risks associated with high dose androgenic anabolic steroid use are substantial, with cardiovascular harms particularly well documented.

These risks may be further amplified in the older, former elite athletes the games appear to target.

In addition, androgenic anabolic steroid use is associated with hypogonadism, infertility, and long term endocrine disruption, as well as cognitive and neuropsychiatric harms that may persist beyond cessation.

Beyond anabolic steroids, the Enhanced Games permitted protocols incorporating several other substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Prohibited List.

These include peptide hormones, growth factors, and related substances including human growth hormone and erythropoietin, hormone and metabolic modulators including clomiphene and insulin, diuretics and masking agents, and stimulants such as modafinil and Adderall.

Many of these agents carry their own risks of multisystem harm, which may be compounded when used in combination or at above therapeutic doses.

The potential for acute and long term harm underscores the limitations of the proposed safety model.

Acute risks-such as cardiac events triggered by high dose stimulant use immediately prior to competition-may occur too rapidly for effective intervention.

Longer term consequences, including cardiomyopathy, infertility, and neurocognitive decline, may not emerge until years after exposure.

These risks create a fundamental ethical tension for clinicians.

In this and future games they are expected to supervise the administration of substances they know can be harmful, challenging core ethical principles such as non-maleficence, valid consent, and professional integrity.

The Enhanced Games may also contribute to the normalisation of performance enhancing drug use among amateur athletes and recreational gym users, with broader public health implications.

Medical practitioners may increasingly face pressure to support performance optimisation in otherwise healthy people.

In such situations, doctors should clearly communicate the established risks of these substances and challenge false claims with evidence based responses.

Targeted public health messaging and education-particularly within gym and recreational sport settings-are also encouraged to reduce uptake.

The scientific, clinical, and ethical shortcomings of the Enhanced Games expose a fundamental contradiction.

Although presented as a platform for innovation and discovery, their model is not grounded in an evidence base sufficient to ensure safety, predictability, or meaningful scientific insight.

Rather than advancing knowledge, the Enhanced Games risk legitimising potentially harmful practices under the guise of regulation and progress.

 

Free 30 October Webinar On International Trade Law and the Sustainable Development Goals

https://thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Luzern_asv2022-10_Universit%C3%A4t_und_PH.jpg/330px-Luzern_asv2022-10_Universit%C3%A4t_und_PH.jpg

Continue reading Free 30 October Webinar On International Trade Law and the Sustainable Development Goals →

Free 29 October Webinar on United Nations International Day of Care and Support

Continue reading Free 29 October Webinar on United Nations International Day of Care and Support →

Free 29 October Zoom Webinar On Data Centers in Malaysia

Continue reading Free 29 October Zoom Webinar On Data Centers in Malaysia →