OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T77
Related Research Case IDs: F77 – International Fact-Check & New Guidelines Case
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T53–T56, T66–T76, F66–F76, 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 mapping of fact-check & response
[ ] Implementation monitoring of new guidelines
[ ] Retrospective / archival learning
1. BASIC CASE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “AP Fact-Check & HGT New Media Guidelines”)
Case category (tick all that apply):
[ ] International fact-check / investigative article
[ ] Use of forged / unverified documents in media
[ ] New media / communication guidelines or code of conduct
[ ] Institutional reputation & public trust
[ ] Post-conflict reform (after F66–F76)
[ ] SDG-aligned governance reform
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 Fact-check origin
External fact-check / media outlet name (e.g. AP, AFP, etc.):
Date of fact-check publication: ____ / ____ / ______
Short neutral note on what the fact-check focused on (3–5 sentences):
1.3 Status of institutional response
Current status:
[ ] No formal response yet
[ ] Internal acknowledgement only
[ ] Draft media / ethics guidelines prepared
[ ] Guidelines adopted but not widely implemented
[ ] Guidelines adopted and being actively implemented / monitored
Short current-status note:
2. BACKGROUND – NEUTRAL SUMMARY
2.1 Neutral narrative of the fact-check & issues raised
Describe in neutral language:
-
What claims the fact-check evaluated (relics, tests, letters, etc.);
-
What the main findings were (true / false / misleading / unclear);
-
How this connects to earlier cases (F66–F76);
-
Immediate internal reactions (leadership, staff, community).
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
2.2 Multiple perspectives
External fact-checker / media perspective (short summary):
HGT / Hswagata internal leadership perspective:
Perspective of key individuals named / affected:
Devotees / public / social media perspective (if known):
3. ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY FACT-CHECK & INTERNAL REVIEW
3.1 Issues raised in the fact-check
Tick and expand:
[ ] Use of forged or unverified letters.
[ ] Misleading use of “science talk” or lab language.
[ ] Exaggerated claims about relic origin / status.
[ ] Inaccurate references to palace / ministries / foreign institutions.
[ ] Lack of transparency or documentation.
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
Short list of key issues:
3.2 Internal additional issues discovered
Tick and expand:
[ ] Weak internal review before public statements.
[ ] No clear media policy or spokesperson system.
[ ] No verification SOP for documents shown in public.
[ ] Poor record-keeping of evidence and sources.
[ ] Inconsistent messages across different speakers / platforms.
Short internal-review note:
4. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
4.1 Relevant teachings
Tick what applies:
[ ] sacca – truthfulness in speech and documents.
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech in media and public communication.
[ ] musāvāda – risk of false or misleading public claims.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to fame or publicity.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion for those harmed or shamed.
[ ] hiri-ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing in public.
[ ] anicca / anattā – letting go of attachment to image or praise.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
4.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Did we previously allow unverified claims to be presented as fact?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did we prioritise prestige or fundraising above truthfulness?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Are we now willing to accept correction and apologise if needed?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Do the new guidelines genuinely reflect Buddhist ethics, not just “PR”?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences):
5. PEACE, CONFLICT & HARM
5.1 Galtung’s triangle
Contradictions (C) – structural problems (e.g. lack of media SOPs, pressure to “prove” relics):
Attitudes (A) – emotions (shame, defensiveness, relief, gratitude, fear):
Behaviours (B) – behaviours before and after fact-check (promotional talks, corrections, reforms):
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
5.2 Types of violence / harm
Tick if present:
[ ] Harm to faith (devotees confused, disillusioned).
[ ] Harm to individuals (reputational damage, stress, burnout).
[ ] Structural harm (culture of exaggeration, unverified claims).
[ ] Cultural harm (using symbols to hide misleading practices).
Concrete examples:
5.3 Peace & repair opportunities
Opportunities in this case:
[ ] Turn the fact-check into a moment of honest reform.
[ ] Clarify facts and apologise where needed to protect faith.
[ ] Build more honest relations with media and partners.
[ ] Use the new guidelines as part of H96 training.
Short peace-opportunity note:
6. NEW MEDIA / COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES
6.1 Development process
Tick and describe:
[ ] Small internal drafting group.
[ ] Consultation with monastics / elders.
[ ] Consultation with media / communication experts.
[ ] Consultation with legal / ethics advisors.
[ ] Input from youth / volunteers.
Short process note:
6.2 Key elements of the new guidelines
Tick and briefly summarise:
[ ] Rules on verifying documents before public use.
[ ] Rules on referencing palaces / ministries / labs / universities.
[ ] Approval process for public talks, interviews, PPTs.
[ ] Social media policy for staff / custodians.
[ ] Correction / apology protocol when mistakes are found.
[ ] Data / archive management for evidence.
Short summary of main rules (5–10 sentences):
6.3 Implementation plan
Tick and describe:
[ ] Training sessions for staff / monastics / volunteers.
[ ] Short handbook or quick-reference sheet.
[ ] Orientation for new custodians / residents.
[ ] Periodic refresher workshops.
[ ] Mechanism for anonymous reporting of guideline breaches.
Implementation note:
7. GOVERNANCE & SDG LENS
7.1 Governance integration
Tick and comment:
[ ] Guidelines formally adopted by board / committee.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Linked to formal roles (e.g. spokesperson, media officer).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Linked to disciplinary / remedial procedures.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Aligned with other policies (MoUs, HR, ethics, H96 tools).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
7.2 SDG connections
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(How truthful communication protects relic narratives and heritage projects)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(Transparency, accountability, anti-corruption, responsible media)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(Cooperation with palaces, ministries, labs, universities, media)
Other SDGs (optional): _______________________________________________
8. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE INDEX – T77
8.1 Fact-check & related media
| Code | Date | Type (fact-check / article / clip / transcript) | Outlet / platform | File location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T77_M01 | ||||
| T77_M02 |
8.2 Internal responses & guidelines
| Code | Date | Type (minutes / draft / final guidelines / memo) | Description | File location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T77_D01 | ||||
| T77_D02 |
8.3 Training & implementation records
| Code | Date | Type (training, workshop, briefing) | Target group | Key points | File location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T77_T01 | |||||
| T77_T02 |
9. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & FOLLOW-UP
9.1 Options considered
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] Minimal response – private adjustment only.
[ ] Quiet internal guideline, no public communication.
[ ] Public acknowledgement of fact-check, with respectful dialogue.
[ ] Public apology where serious misrepresentation occurred.
[ ] Joint statement with external partners (where appropriate).
[ ] Major governance reform linked to F76 platform.
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short description of main options and their pros/cons:
9.2 Decisions taken
Final or current decision(s):
Date(s) of decisions: ____ / ____ / ______ and ____ / ____ / ______
Who decided? (names or roles):
9.3 Follow-up actions & indicators
-
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Indicator of success (e.g. fewer misleading statements, positive feedback):
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
-
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Indicator of success: _____________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Indicator of success: _____________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
10. H96 REFLECTION & RISK RATING
H96 guiding question:
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian studied this fact-check and our new guidelines, would they see humble trusteeship and courage to tell the truth – or ego, fear, and hiding?”
10.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what we are doing right, or trying to improve):
Risky elements (where ego, fear, or injustice could still shape our media behaviour):
10.2 Risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk (local, national, cross-border, 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: _______________________________________________________________
11. SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
11.1 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / ethics / peace / media committee):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
11.2 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 fact-check & guidelines case and how we tried to protect truth, relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
