OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T68
Related Research Case IDs: F68 – Suspicious Chat / Screenshot Case
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T53–T56 (verification tools), T66–T67, 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. “Suspicious Viber Screenshot Referring to Ministry Decision”)
Case category (tick all that apply):
[ ] Documentation / forgery / misinformation issue
[ ] Misuse of state / official authority in chat / screenshot
[ ] Personal / ethical conflict
[ ] Faith / reputation risk
[ ] Safety / welfare / duty-of-care issue
[ ] Digital communication / social media risk
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 People and institutions at the centre
Main individuals (use codes if needed):
Sender / forwarder of chat / screenshot:
Key recipient(s) (especially custodians under pressure):
Any named official / leader in the screenshot (real or impersonated):
Other key people (e.g. HGT leaders, monastics, donors, IT support):
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Institutional setting (tick all that apply):
[ ] Hswagata / HGT museum environment
[ ] Temple / monastery / Saṅgha institution: _________________________
[ ] Government / ministry / public agency (alleged): _________________
[ ] Foreign institution (palace, embassy, etc.) (alleged): ___________
[ ] Messaging / social media platform (Viber / WhatsApp / other): ____
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
1.3 Timeframe & status
Approximate date when the suspicious chat / screenshot first appeared:
____ / ____ / ______
Key turning points (sharing, escalation, verification, clarification):
Current status:
[ ] Ongoing (screenshot still circulating / causing harm)
[ ] Partially resolved (some clarification, some confusion)
[ ] Largely resolved but with long-term impacts / mistrust / trauma
[ ] Closed (archival and 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:
-
What the chat / screenshot showed and claimed;
-
Who sent it, who received it, and through which channel / group;
-
How recipients understood the message (threat, order, advice, etc.);
-
Immediate effects (fear, decisions, changes in relic custody or roles);
-
Later steps (verification, denial, apology, or silence).
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
2.2 Multiple perspectives
Sender / forwarder’s view (short summary):
Recipient / targeted custodian(s)’ view:
Institution / official body allegedly represented in the chat (after clarification, if any):
Other key stakeholder views (e.g. Saṅgha, donors, community, IT / legal advisors):
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 & digital context
Tick if present:
[ ] Imbalance of power between sender and recipient.
[ ] Fear of state / ministry / “national property” language.
[ ] Use of official photos / logos in chat to create pressure.
[ ] Group-chat dynamics (many observers, public shaming risk).
[ ] Health / welfare vulnerabilities (stress, hospitalisation, burnout).
[ ] Limited digital literacy (recipients unsure how to verify screenshot).
Short note on power, vulnerability and digital context:
4. ISSUE MAPPING – “CAB” (CONTRADICTIONS, ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOURS)
4.1 Contradictions (C)
Key issues / contradictions at the heart of this case (tick & expand):
[ ] Authentic vs manipulated / out-of-context screenshot.
[ ] Private chat vs official decision-making channels.
[ ] Fear-based “order” vs formal trusteeship and due process.
[ ] Digital rumour vs verified, written statements.
[ ] Who may speak “in the name of” an institution via chat / social media.
[ ] Other core contradiction(s): _______________________________
List main contradictions:
4.2 Attitudes (A)
Emotions and mind-states:
[ ] Fear (of state power, losing relics, losing role).
[ ] Distrust / betrayal towards sender or institutions.
[ ] Shame or guilt about having believed or forwarded the screenshot.
[ ] Anger, defensiveness, desire to expose or conceal the truth.
[ ] Anxiety, sleep disturbance, loss of confidence, health impacts.
[ ] Relief / gratitude when truth is clarified.
Notes:
4.3 Behaviours (B)
Concrete behaviours recorded:
[ ] Forwarding screenshot without verification.
[ ] Using screenshot to pressure decisions about relics / roles.
[ ] Silent fear and obedience (no questions asked).
[ ] Proactive verification (contacting ministry / office / advisors).
[ ] Apology / correction sent in the same chat / group.
[ ] Blocking / exiting group, or cutting communication.
Describe key behaviours and turning points:
5. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
5.1 Relevant teachings
Tick what applies:
[ ] sacca – truthfulness, careful with what is claimed or forwarded.
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech in digital form (true, beneficial, timely, gentle).
[ ] musāvāda – concern about false or misleading speech / images.
[ ] dāna – decisions about relics must be free, not manipulated by fear.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to status or fear-based control.
[ ] hiri-ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing in sharing doubtful content.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion for stressed custodians and confused devotees.
[ ] anicca / anattā – letting go of ego-driven need to control others.
[ ] Other relevant concepts: __________________________________________
5.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Was a chat / screenshot used to pressure custodians or donors?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did anyone send or forward content they had not verified?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Once doubts arose, were steps taken quickly to clarify / apologise?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did custodians remember they are trustees, not political agents or enforcers?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences – no personal attacks):
6. PEACE STUDIES LENS – CONFLICT, HARM & WELL-BEING
6.1 Galtung’s triangle
How does the situation show:
-
Contradictions (C) – see Section 4.1
-
Attitudes (A) – fear, betrayal, shame, etc. (Section 4.2)
-
Behaviours (B) – forwarding, pressuring, verifying, etc. (Section 4.3)
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
6.2 Types of violence
Tick if present:
[ ] Direct verbal violence (in the chat – insults, shaming).
[ ] Structural violence (using perceived institutional power in chat).
[ ] Cultural violence (using religious / national symbols in screenshot to justify pressure).
[ ] Self-directed harm risk (extreme stress, breakdown, desire to withdraw).
Concrete examples:
6.3 Peace & well-being opportunities
Opportunities in this case:
[ ] Clarify digital communication and verification policies.
[ ] Offer pastoral / psychological support to affected custodians.
[ ] Repair relationships using transparent communication and mediation.
[ ] Use the case in training for digital literacy and peace communication.
[ ] Develop “safe chat” guidelines for relic-related messages.
Short peace and well-being note:
7. GOVERNANCE & SDG LENS
7.1 Governance gaps revealed
Tick and comment:
[ ] No policy on official use of messaging apps / screenshots.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No protocol for verifying digital content that claims official authority.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No guidance on how relic / heritage decisions must not be made by chat.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Weak record-keeping of decisions influenced by digital messages.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No clear duty-of-care or support system for digitally pressured custodians.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
7.2 SDG links
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(impact of the screenshot on relic safety, donation, movement)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(transparency, accountable communication, anti-corruption, verification)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(relations with ministries, monasteries, digital platforms, NGOs)
Other SDGs (if any): _________________________________________________
8. CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS
(Short, factual timeline – use additional sheets if needed.)
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people / chat group: _________________________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people / chat group: _________________________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people / chat group: _________________________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people / chat group: _________________________________________
Chronology attachment file code (if any): ____________________________
9. DIGITAL EVIDENCE & VERIFICATION INDEX
9.1 Key digital items
(List screenshots, chat exports, voice notes, etc.)
| Code | Date | Platform (Viber / WhatsApp / other) | Type (screenshot / export / audio) | Status (original / edited / unclear) |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
9.2 Verification status
Tick relevant tools / methods used:
[ ] Direct confirmation from named institution / person.
[ ] IT / digital forensics check (metadata, editing signs).
[ ] T53 – External Institution Clarification.
[ ] T54 – Forged Letters & Fact-Check Sheet (adapted for screenshots).
[ ] Legal / platform policy consultation (if needed).
[ ] 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 in the same chat / group.
[ ] Wider correction (public post, sermon, meeting).
[ ] Formal complaint to relevant authorities or platform (if serious misuse).
[ ] Mediation / facilitated dialogue between sender and recipient(s).
[ ] Introducing digital communication SOPs and training.
[ ] Providing well-being / counselling support to affected custodians.
[ ] 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 digital case and our response, would they see humble trusteeship, truthfulness, and care for well-being – or ego, fear, and misuse of digital tools?”
11.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what was done well, or where improvement started):
Risky elements (ego, nationalism, humiliation, pressure, weak verification, digital carelessness):
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: _______________________________________________________________
E. Well-being / mental health risk (custodians, staff, community):
[ ] 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 / digital governance):
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 digital screenshot case and how we tried to protect truth, relics, faith, relationships, and well-being?)
