OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T67
Related Research Case IDs: F67 – Misuse of Alleged Ministry Documents
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T53–T56 (verification tools), T66, F68–F69, H96–H100]
Cluster: F – HGT Conflicts (Cases 66–85)
Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______
Case file code (office): _____________________________________________
Completed by / Role: ________________________________________________
Office / Unit: ______________________________________________________
Country: ____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality Level:
[ ] Internal only [ ] Restricted (leadership / ethics) [ ] Sacred-Restricted
1. BASIC CASE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Alleged Ministry Screenshot and ‘National Property’ Message”)
Case category (tick all that apply):
[ ] Documentation / forgery / misinformation issue
[ ] Misuse of state / official authority
[ ] Personal / ethical conflict
[ ] Institutional governance issue
[ ] Faith / reputation risk
[ ] Cross-border / national-level sensitivity
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 People and institutions at the centre
Main individuals (use codes if needed):
Sender / forwarder of alleged document / screenshot:
Recipient(s) of alleged document / screenshot:
Alleged official / minister / office named in the document:
Other key people (e.g. HGT leaders, monastics, officials, donors):
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Institutional setting (tick all that apply):
[ ] Hswagata / HGT museum environment
[ ] Temple / monastery / Saṅgha institution: _________________________
[ ] Government / ministry / public agency: ___________________________
[ ] Foreign institution (palace, embassy, etc.): _____________________
[ ] Online / messaging platform (Viber, etc.): _______________________
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
1.3 Timeframe & status
Approximate date when alleged ministry document first appeared:
____ / ____ / ______
Key turning points (e.g. sharing, challenge, verification, correction):
Current status:
[ ] Ongoing (document still circulating / causing harm)
[ ] Partially resolved (some clarification, some confusion)
[ ] Largely resolved but with long-term impacts / mistrust
[ ] Closed (archival / training only)
Short current-status note:
2. BACKGROUND – NEUTRAL CASE SUMMARY
2.1 Short narrative of events (facts as far as known)
Describe what happened in neutral language, including:
-
Type of alleged ministry document (letter, screenshot, message, seal, etc.);
-
Who sent it, who received it, and through what channel;
-
What the document claimed (e.g. “relics must be national property”);
-
How others reacted (acceptance, doubt, challenge, verification);
-
Any impact on decisions, relationships, or relic custodianship.
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
2.2 Multiple perspectives
Briefly record how each main actor sees the situation:
Sender / forwarder’s view (short summary):
Recipient / targeted custodian(s)’ view:
Ministry / official institution’s view (after clarification, if any):
Other key stakeholder views (e.g. Saṅgha, donors, community, media):
3. STAKEHOLDER & POWER MAPPING
3.1 Stakeholder list
(Use codes if needed to protect privacy.)
| Code / Name | Role (monk / lay / official / donor / staff / other) | Power level (H/M/L) | Main interest / fear |
|---|---|---|---|
3.2 Power & vulnerability
Tick if present:
[ ] Imbalance of power between sender and recipient.
[ ] Fear of state power / “national property” / ministry action.
[ ] Pressure from prominent religious or lay leaders.
[ ] Pressure from donors / supporters / social media.
[ ] Health / welfare vulnerabilities (stress, hospitalisation, burnout).
Short note on power and vulnerability:
4. ISSUE MAPPING – “CAB” (CONTRADICTIONS, ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOURS)
4.1 Contradictions (C)
Key issues / contradictions at the heart of this case (tick & expand):
[ ] Authentic vs forged / altered official documents.
[ ] Trusteeship of relics vs “national property” narrative.
[ ] Formal ministry procedures vs informal / private messaging.
[ ] Fear-based pressure vs voluntary, informed decision-making.
[ ] Who has the authority to speak in the name of the ministry / state.
[ ] Other core contradiction(s): _________________________________
List main contradictions:
4.2 Attitudes (A)
Emotions and mind-states present:
[ ] Fear (of state action, loss of relics, punishment).
[ ] Distrust / betrayal towards sender or institutions.
[ ] Shame or guilt about sharing or believing questionable documents.
[ ] Anger, defensiveness, desire to “prove” authority.
[ ] Anxiety leading to health or spiritual impacts.
[ ] Relief / gratitude when truth is clarified.
Notes:
4.3 Behaviours (B)
Concrete behaviours recorded:
[ ] Forwarding unverified screenshots / letters.
[ ] Using alleged ministry authority to pressure decisions.
[ ] Public references to documents without verification.
[ ] Quietly correcting or retracting claims.
[ ] Refusing to cooperate with verification processes.
[ ] Offering apology / clarification once error is known.
Describe key behaviours and turning points:
5. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
5.1 Relevant teachings
Tick what applies:
[ ] sacca – truthful speech, careful with facts and documents.
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech (true, beneficial, timely, gentle).
[ ] musāvāda – concern about false speech / forgery / misleading claims.
[ ] dāna – decisions about relics should be free, not under fear.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to power or prestige.
[ ] hiri-ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing in misusing authority.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion for those harmed by misinformation.
[ ] anicca / anattā – non-attachment to status, power, “ownership”.
[ ] Other relevant concepts: _______________________________________
5.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Were alleged ministry / official documents used to pressure decisions about relics or people?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did anyone knowingly continue to use a document after doubts were raised?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Was there clear, honest correction when documents were shown false or misleading?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did custodians remember they are trustees, not owners, and not political actors?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences – no personal attacks):
6. PEACE STUDIES LENS – CONFLICT & HARM
6.1 Galtung’s triangle
How does the situation show:
Contradictions (C) – see Section 4.1
Attitudes (A) – fear, distrust, shame, etc. (Section 4.2)
Behaviours (B) – use of screenshots, pressure, correction, etc. (Section 4.3)
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
6.2 Types of violence
Tick if present:
[ ] Direct verbal violence (shouting, insults, public shaming).
[ ] Structural violence (using state / institutional power to intimidate).
[ ] Cultural violence (using religious / national symbols to hide pressure).
[ ] Self-directed harm risk (extreme stress, breakdown, despair).
Concrete examples:
6.3 Peace opportunities
Opportunities in this case:
[ ] Clarify policy on verifying and using official documents.
[ ] Correct the record publicly to protect faith and trust.
[ ] Repair relationships between those affected.
[ ] Use case as training for digital literacy and fact-checking.
[ ] Strengthen duty-of-care procedures for stressed custodians.
Short peace-opportunity note:
7. GOVERNANCE & SDG LENS
7.1 Governance gaps revealed
Tick and comment:
[ ] No clear policy on verifying letters / screenshots / seals.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No clear rule about who may communicate “in the name of” the ministry / state.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No SOP on how to respond when dubious documents appear.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Weak record-keeping of how such documents were used in decisions.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Lack of internal ethics / complaints channel for custodians under pressure.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
7.2 SDG links
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(impact on relic safety, movement, or donation decisions)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(transparency, verification procedures, anti-corruption, accountability)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(relations with ministries, embassies, labs, and other formal bodies)
Other SDGs (if any): _________________________________________________
8. CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS
(Short, factual timeline – use additional sheets if needed.)
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people: _______________________________________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people: _______________________________________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people: _______________________________________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people: _______________________________________________________
Chronology attachment file code (if any): ____________________________
9. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE INDEX
9.1 Key documents
(List the alleged ministry documents and related evidence.)
| Code | Date | Type (letter / screenshot / chat / memo) | Claimed origin | Status (authentic / forged / unclear) |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
9.2 Verification status
Tick relevant tools / methods used:
[ ] Direct confirmation from ministry / government office.
[ ] Email / phone record of clarification.
[ ] T53 – External Institution Clarification.
[ ] T54 – Forged Letters & Fact-Check Sheet.
[ ] T55 – “Science Talk” / technical claims review (if present).
[ ] Legal / policy consultation.
[ ] Other verification method: _______________________________
Short note on verification outcomes:
10. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & FOLLOW-UP
10.1 Options considered
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] Quiet internal clarification only.
[ ] Written correction / apology to affected persons.
[ ] Public clarification (sermon, notice, online post).
[ ] Formal complaint to relevant authorities (if forgery serious).
[ ] Mediation / facilitated dialogue between parties.
[ ] Training / policy change to prevent similar misuse.
[ ] No further action (archival and reflection only).
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short description of main options and their pros/cons:
10.2 Decisions taken
Final or current decision(s):
Date(s) of decisions: ____ / ____ / ______ and ____ / ____ / ______
Who decided? (names or roles):
10.3 Follow-up actions
-
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
11. H96 REFLECTION & RISK RATING
H96 guiding question:
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian studied this case and our response, would they see humble trusteeship and truthfulness – or ego, fear, and misuse of authority?”
11.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what was handled well, or where improvement started):
Risky elements (ego, nationalism, humiliation, pressure, weak verification):
11.2 Risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk (local, national, cross-border):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Heritage / physical risk to relics / heritage items:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (temple, HGT, Saṅgha, partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
12. SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
12.1 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / ethics / peace committee):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
12.2 Archive details
Case / file code: _________________________________________________
Physical location (cabinet / box / folder): _________________________
Digital location (drive / folder path): _____________________________
Access level:
[ ] General internal [ ] Restricted [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Notes for future custodians:
(What should future leaders remember about this “alleged ministry document” case and how we tried to protect truth, relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
