OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T75
Related Research Case IDs: F75 – Long-Term Reputational Damage After Relic Conflict
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T66–T74, T53–T56, F66–F74, 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 / communications) [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form:
[ ] Initial reputational-impact mapping
[ ] Periodic review of reputation & trust
[ ] Retrospective / archival learning
1. BASIC CASE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Long-Term Reputational Damage After Relic Conflict”)
Case category (tick all that apply):
[ ] Long-term reputational damage
[ ] Structural / cultural violence (trust broken)
[ ] Post-conflict legacy of earlier relic dispute
[ ] Faith / trust deficit in institutions
[ ] Media / social media reputation case
[ ] Partnership / MoU impact case
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 Origin conflict / background cases
Which earlier cases created this long-term reputation problem?
Linked background cases (codes only, e.g. F66–F74, T66–T74):
Short note on origin (2–4 sentences):
1.3 Timeframe & status
Approximate start of reputational damage (first visible signs):
____ / ____ / ______
Key phases (e.g. active conflict, media spread, clarification, slow healing):
Current status:
[ ] Ongoing trust crisis
[ ] Partial healing – trust mixed / fragile
[ ] Mostly healed but legacy still remembered
[ ] Case closed (for teaching and historical learning only)
Short current-status note:
2. BACKGROUND – NEUTRAL REPUTATIONAL SUMMARY
2.1 Short neutral narrative
Describe in neutral language:
-
What happened in the original conflict / event(s);
-
How reputations of people / institutions were affected;
-
How long the damage has lasted;
-
Any major turning points (apologies, clarifications, new scandals, reforms).
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
2.2 Multiple perspectives on reputation
Internal perspective (staff, leaders, custodians):
Devotees / local community perspective:
External partners (temples, museums, ministries, universities, donors):
Media / online public perspective (if known):
3. STAKEHOLDER & TRUST MAPPING
3.1 Stakeholder list
(Use codes if needed to protect privacy.)
| Code / Name | Role (monk / lay / official / donor / staff / other) | Level of trust in our institution (H/M/L) | Main concerns / expectations |
|---|---|---|---|
3.2 Types of reputational impact
Tick what applies:
[ ] Trust in individual custodians damaged.
[ ] Trust in a specific institution (HGT / museum / temple) damaged.
[ ] Wider trust in relic governance reduced.
[ ] Partnerships / MoUs slowed down or cancelled.
[ ] Donor / volunteer enthusiasm reduced.
[ ] Youth / next generation less willing to join custodianship roles.
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
Short note on what has been damaged:
3.3 Geographic and community scope
Tick and describe:
[ ] Mainly local impact (local community / town).
[ ] National-level impact (media, wider Saṅgha, state).
[ ] Cross-border impact (international partners / diaspora).
Short scope note:
4. REPUTATIONAL HARM – PATTERNS & CHANNELS
4.1 Channels through which damage spreads
Tick and describe:
[ ] Face-to-face gossip / informal talk.
[ ] Social media posts / comments.
[ ] Traditional media (TV / radio / newspapers).
[ ] Sermons / talks / community meetings.
[ ] Official statements from other institutions.
[ ] Academic or activist criticism.
Short note on main channels:
4.2 Repeated narratives or “stories” about us
List common narratives (positive or negative), e.g.:
-
“That museum is not transparent.”
-
“Those custodians are greedy / dishonest / careless.”
-
“They tried to correct their mistakes and improve.”
N1: __________________________________________________________________
N2: __________________________________________________________________
N3: __________________________________________________________________
N4: __________________________________________________________________
Short comment on how these narratives affect SDG-relevant trust:
5. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
5.1 Relevant teachings
Tick what applies:
[ ] saddhā – faith / confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma, Saṅgha.
[ ] sacca – truthfulness; long-term impact of lies or half-truths.
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech in public, private and online.
[ ] hiri-ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing, including past mistakes.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to prestige or money.
[ ] kalyāṇa-mittatā – good spiritual friendship (or breakdown of it).
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion for those whose reputation was harmed.
[ ] anicca / anattā – letting go of ego and image to rebuild trust honestly.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
5.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Did our actions (or inactions) contribute to broken trust?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did we correct mistakes quickly, or delay because of ego / fear?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did we use sacred / state symbols in ways that later harmed trust?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Are we willing now to be more transparent, even if embarrassing?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences – reflective, not blaming):
6. PEACE, STRUCTURAL & CULTURAL VIOLENCE
6.1 Galtung’s triangle
Contradictions (C) – structural issues (unclear rules, power imbalance, weak fact-checking):
Attitudes (A) – emotions now (shame, mistrust, fear, disappointment, hope):
Behaviours (B) – how people act because of damaged reputation (avoid, attack, cooperate, stay silent):
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
6.2 Types of violence / harm
Tick if present:
[ ] Structural violence (exclusion from opportunities, closed doors).
[ ] Cultural violence (negative “stories” that justify exclusion).
[ ] Direct verbal violence (insults, mocking, public shaming).
[ ] Self-directed harm risk (overload, despair in custodians).
[ ] Harm to faith (people lose confidence in relics, Dhamma, Saṅgha).
Concrete examples:
6.3 Peace & healing opportunities
Opportunities in this case:
[ ] Openly acknowledge past mistakes and seek forgiveness.
[ ] Show consistent, transparent behaviour over time.
[ ] Share accurate information about reforms and safeguards.
[ ] Create safe spaces for honest dialogue.
[ ] Invite third-party support (mediators, advisors).
[ ] Use this case as a teaching tool for future custodians.
Short healing-opportunity note:
7. GOVERNANCE, INTEGRITY & SDGs
7.1 Governance failures that contributed to reputational damage
Tick and comment:
[ ] Weak verification of documents / tests / claims.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No clear policy on media and public communication.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No mechanism to handle complaints or concerns fairly.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Internal conflicts handled informally, not transparently.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Nepotism, unclear finances, or perceived conflicts of interest.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
7.2 Governance reforms already attempted
Tick and describe:
[ ] New or revised MoUs / statutes.
[ ] New verification SOPs for documents / tests.
[ ] New media and communications policy.
[ ] New ethics / peace / HR committee.
[ ] Staff training on H96 / H97, structural violence, and SDGs.
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
Short note on reforms:
7.3 SDG links
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(How reputational damage affects relic / heritage projects, donations, volunteers):
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(How reputation links to transparency, anti-corruption, fairness, complaint systems):
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(How damaged trust affects partnerships; how honest reforms can rebuild them):
Other SDGs (optional): _______________________________________________
8. TIMELINE OF REPUTATIONAL EVENTS
(Short, factual timeline – focus on trust & reputation, not all conflict details.)
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event (e.g. conflict going public, key accusation, viral post):
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event (e.g. clarification, apology, media report, reform announcement):
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event (e.g. new partnership blocked, donor withdraws, support renewed):
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event:
Chronology attachment file code (if any): ____________________________
9. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE INDEX
9.1 Internal documents
| Code | Date | Type (minutes / letters / internal memo / policy) | Description | File location |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
9.2 External & public documents
| Code | Date | Type (news / social media / public statement / web page) | Description | File location |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
9.3 Perception & feedback data (if any)
| Code | Date | Type (survey / interview / informal notes) | Group (staff / devotees / partners) | Main message | File location |
|---|
| | | | |
| | | | |
10. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & LONG-TERM STRATEGY
10.1 Options considered
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] Minimal communication – let time pass and reputation slowly heal.
[ ] Quiet engagement with key stakeholders to rebuild trust.
[ ] Public apology / truth-telling event.
[ ] Comprehensive governance reform with public reporting.
[ ] Rebranding / new institutional structures.
[ ] Formal partnership with trusted third party for oversight.
[ ] Use this case as a central teaching module for ethics and peace.
[ ] 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 & indicators
-
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Indicator of success: _____________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Indicator of success: _____________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Indicator of success: _____________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
11. H96 REFLECTION & RISK RATING
H96 guiding question:
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian looked at our history and this long-term reputational damage, would they see honest trusteeship and learning – or denial, ego, and fear?”
11.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what we are doing right, or trying to improve):
Risky elements (where ego, fear, or injustice still shape our reputation):
11.2 Risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk (integrity of custodianship):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk (local, national, cross-border):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Heritage / project continuity risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (institution, 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 / communications 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 long-term reputational damage case and how we tried to protect truth, relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
