OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T73
Related Research Case IDs: F73 – Social Media Interview with Forged Letters
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T53–T56, T66–T72, F67–F75, 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 / media) [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form:
[ ] Initial media case mapping
[ ] Ongoing media monitoring
[ ] Retrospective / archival learning
1. BASIC CASE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Social Media Interview Using Forged Letters”)
Case category (tick all that apply):
[ ] Social media / online interview
[ ] Use of forged / unverified letters or documents
[ ] Relic trusteeship / ownership narrative
[ ] Institutional reputation & public trust
[ ] Cross-border / national-level sensitivity
[ ] Personal / ethical conflict
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 Platform & reach
Main platform(s) where interview appeared (tick all that apply):
[ ] Facebook Live
[ ] YouTube / video-sharing site
[ ] TV / radio uploaded to social media
[ ] Podcast / audio platform
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Approximate audience / reach (if known):
[ ] < 1,000 views / listens
[ ] 1,000–10,000
[ ] 10,000–100,000
[ ] > 100,000
[ ] Unknown
Short note on reach / influence (e.g. key audiences, countries):
1.3 Timeframe & status
Date of recording: ____ / ____ / ______
Date of first publication online: ____ / ____ / ______
Current status:
[ ] Still online in original form
[ ] Online but edited / partially removed
[ ] Fully removed from official channel
[ ] Copies / re-uploads exist elsewhere
[ ] Unknown
Short current-status note:
2. PEOPLE & INSTITUTIONS AT THE CENTRE
2.1 Interview participants
Host / interviewer:
Name / code: ____________________________ Role / affiliation: __________________
Guest / speaker (main person using letters):
Name / code: ____________________________ Role / affiliation: __________________
Other visible speakers / panellists:
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
2.2 Institutions referenced
Tick and name:
[ ] HGT / Hswagata / museum: ________________________________________
[ ] Temple / monastery / Saṅgha council: ____________________________
[ ] Ministry / government office: ___________________________________
[ ] Palace / royal household: _______________________________________
[ ] Foreign institution (lab, university, NGO): _____________________
[ ] Media outlet (TV / radio brand): ________________________________
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
Short note on institutional setting:
3. CONTENT OVERVIEW – INTERVIEW & LETTERS
3.1 Main themes of the interview
Tick and expand:
[ ] Origin and authenticity of relics / objects.
[ ] Claims about tests (scientific / royal / ministry-based).
[ ] Stories about ownership, donation, national property.
[ ] Criticisms of other individuals / institutions.
[ ] Promotion of a new museum / project / fundraising.
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
Short neutral summary (5–10 sentences):
3.2 Forged / unverified letters and documents used
List each document mentioned/used in the interview (codes can be used):
| Doc Code | Type (letter / email / memo / certificate) | Claimed origin (ministry / palace / lab / other) | How shown (screen, print, described) | Verification status (authentic / forged / unclear) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Short note on how letters were presented to the audience:
4. BACKGROUND – NEUTRAL CASE SUMMARY
4.1 Short narrative (facts as far as known)
Describe in neutral language:
-
Why this interview was organised;
-
What main story it tried to tell;
-
Where forged / unverified letters were used;
-
Immediate reactions (online comments, internal concerns, etc.).
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
4.2 Multiple perspectives
Speaker / guest’s own view (short summary):
Institution / persons criticised in the interview:
View from HGT / Hswagata / related institutions:
View from general devotees / online audience (if known):
5. SOCIAL MEDIA / MEDIA DYNAMICS
5.1 Distribution pattern
Tick and describe:
[ ] Single-channel upload only.
[ ] Shared widely across multiple pages / channels.
[ ] Picked up by traditional media.
[ ] Used in fundraising or promotional material.
Short note on distribution:
5.2 Online reactions
Tick if present:
[ ] Strong supportive comments for speaker.
[ ] Strong criticism / questioning of claims.
[ ] Confusion and requests for clarification.
[ ] Trolling / abusive comments.
[ ] Calls for authorities (Saṅgha / state / museum) to respond.
Short note on reaction patterns:
6. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
6.1 Relevant teachings
Tick what applies:
[ ] sacca – truthful speech.
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech (true, beneficial, timely, gentle).
[ ] musāvāda – concern about false or misleading speech / documents.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to fame or power.
[ ] dāna – careful not to manipulate donor faith.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion towards those criticised or misled.
[ ] hiri-ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing in public talk.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
6.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Did the interview present documents as certain without proper verification?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Were individuals / institutions attacked in a way that breaks right speech?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Were audiences clearly told about limitations / doubts regarding the letters?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Is there willingness to correct public errors once known?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences – neutral, not personal attack):
7. PEACE, CONFLICT & HARM
7.1 Galtung’s triangle
Contradictions (C) – main underlying issues (relic claims, authority, institutional rivalry):
Attitudes (A) – emotional climate (pride, fear, anger, mistrust, devotion):
Behaviours (B) – key actions (interview, sharing, defending, correcting, attacking):
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
7.2 Types of violence / harm
Tick if present:
[ ] Direct verbal violence (insults, shaming, mockery in interview).
[ ] Structural violence (using status or platform to silence others).
[ ] Cultural violence (using religious / national symbols to hide harm).
[ ] Harm to faith (devotees confused, trust damaged).
[ ] Harm to individuals (stress, reputational damage).
Concrete examples:
7.3 Peace & repair opportunities
Opportunities in this case:
[ ] Clarify facts about letters and documents.
[ ] Offer apologies / corrections where needed.
[ ] Encourage more careful media practice in future.
[ ] Use this interview as a teaching case for H96 custodians.
[ ] Build dialogue channels between parties affected.
Short peace-opportunity note:
8. GOVERNANCE & SDG LENS
8.1 Institutional / media governance gaps
Tick and comment:
[ ] No media policy on using documents in interviews.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No verification SOP before showing letters on screen.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No internal review / ethics check before publication.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No policy on corrections or takedowns when errors are found.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
8.2 SDG links
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(Impact on credibility of relic narratives, museums, temples)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(Transparency, accountability, anti-corruption, ethical communication)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(Cooperation with media, states, Saṅgha, global networks for ethical relic stories)
Other SDGs (optional): _______________________________________________
9. FACT-CHECKING & VERIFICATION
9.1 Tools and methods used
Tick tools / methods used to verify interview claims and letters:
[ ] T53 – External Institution Clarification (phone / email).
[ ] T54 – Forged Letters & Fact-Check Sheet.
[ ] T55 – “Science Talk” Misuse Review.
[ ] Legal / policy consultation.
[ ] Direct contact with media platform / host.
[ ] Independent expert review (historians, labs, archivists).
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short note on verification process:
9.2 Verification outcomes
Tick and comment:
[ ] Some / all letters confirmed authentic.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Some / all letters confirmed forged or seriously misleading.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Some documents remain unclear / unverified.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Interview description of tests / letters is inaccurate or exaggerated.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short summary of key findings (3–6 sentences):
10. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & FOLLOW-UP
10.1 Options considered
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] Take no public action – monitor only.
[ ] Quiet clarification with interview host / guest.
[ ] Request edit / removal of misleading content.
[ ] Issue public clarification / correction statement.
[ ] Offer joint follow-up interview to correct the record.
[ ] Seek legal advice / formal complaint (if severe).
[ ] Use case mainly for internal training and policy reform.
[ ] 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 watched this interview and our response, would they see humble trusteeship and truthful speech – or ego, fear, and misuse of media?”
11.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (positive intentions, good practices, learning steps):
Risky elements (ego, rivalry, misinformation, harm to people or faith):
11.2 Risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk (local, national, online):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Heritage / relic narrative risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (temple, museum, 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 / media 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 social media interview case and how we tried to protect truth, relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
