OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADER
Template No.: T87
Template Title: External Housing, Landlord & Police – Safe Custody & Structural Neglect Dossier
Related Research Case IDs: G87 – BU External Housing, Landlord Conflict & Police Interaction (Relic & Safety Risk)
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. G86, G88–G90; T70 (donation / transfer); T71 (transitional custody); T72–T75; T81 (documentation); T86; T82 (audit); H96–H100]
Cluster: G – BU Neglect & Relic Loss (Cases 86–95)
Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______
Case / file code (office): _____________________________________________
Prepared by / Role: _________________________________________________
Office / Unit: _______________________________________________________
Country: _____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality Level:
[ ] Internal only
[ ] Restricted (leadership / ethics / legal / student affairs)
[ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form (tick):
[ ] Initial mapping of external housing / landlord / police case
[ ] Ongoing case management and follow-up
[ ] Retrospective / archival learning after incident
1. BASIC CASE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “External Housing, Landlord Conflict & Police Visit – BU Monk with Relics”)
Case type (tick all that apply):
[ ] H – Heritage / relic safety risk
[ ] A – Accommodation / housing / dorm issue
[ ] C – Conflict with landlord / neighbours
[ ] P – Police / legal involvement
[ ] S – Structural / institutional neglect
[ ] D – Discrimination / unequal treatment
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 People & institutions involved
Main individual(s):
Name / code: __________________________ Role (monk / student / staff): __________________
Other individuals directly involved (e.g. landlord, neighbours, police officer code):
Institutional setting (tick all that apply):
[ ]BU main campus: ________________________
[ ] Faculty / programme: _____________________
[ ](-) / international office: _____________
[ ] Student affairs / dormitory office: ______
[ ] External private dorm / landlord: ________
[ ] Local police / authorities: ______________
[ ] Other: ___________________________________
Short note on context:
1.3 Timeframe & current status
Approximate start of housing / landlord issue: ____ / ____ / ______
Key phases (tick):
[ ] Moving to external housing / dorm.
[ ] First complaints / tension with landlord / neighbours.
[ ] Request(s) to BU for No-Objection Letter or support.
[ ] Threat(s) of eviction / police report / legal action.
[ ] Police visit / interrogation / search.
[ ] Relic loss / damage / near-miss incident.
Current status:
[ ] Ongoing (risk still present).
[ ] Relics safe but housing unresolved.
[ ] Relics lost / damaged; case under investigation.
[ ] Partially resolved (some safeguards in place).
[ ] Closed; this template used for learning and archives.
Short current-status note:
2. BACKGROUND & NEUTRAL CASE SUMMARY
2.1 Short neutral narrative
Describe in neutral language:
-
Why the person moved to external housing (or wanted to).
-
What relics / items were present in the room.
-
What problems arose with landlord / neighbours / police.
-
How BU and other institutions responded or did not respond.
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
2.2 Main issues
Tick and briefly describe:
[ ] No safe place on campus for relics, leading to external housing.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Landlord / neighbours became fearful / suspicious (e.g. about relics, nationality, monk status).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Threats of eviction or police action.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Police visit / search / report involving relics or personal safety.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] BU unwilling to give clear written support (No-Objection Letter, confirmation).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
3. REQUESTS, SUPPORT & RESPONSES
3.1 Requests made by the monk / student
Tick and describe:
[ ] Written No-Objection Letter from BU to landlord / authorities.
[ ] Confirmation letter about student / monk status and good standing.
[ ] Support in communication with landlord / neighbours.
[ ] Option to move relics to a safer institutional space.
[ ] Legal advice or accompaniment to police station (if applicable).
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
Short description of main requests (3–6 sentences):
3.2 Responses from MCU & other institutions
| Office / person (role only) | Date | Type of response (written / verbal / none) | Summary (support / refuse / delay / silence) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rector / vice rectors | |||
| (-)/ faculty | |||
| Student affairs | |||
| Dormitory / housing office | |||
| Other (e.g. embassy / NGO) |
Short note on patterns (e.g. support, avoidance, blaming, redirection):
4. RELICS, PERSONAL SAFETY & HOUSING CONTEXT
4.1 Relics / items in the room
| Item code | Description (relic / reliquary / Buddha image / other) | Quantity | Approx. value (spiritual / cultural) | Storage method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Short note on relic storage conditions (security, climate, privacy):
4.2 Housing conditions
Describe briefly:
-
Type of housing (private room, shared dorm, apartment, etc.).
-
Locks, access control, visitors, landlord rules.
-
Any special vulnerabilities (e.g. visible foreign monk, political tension, crime in area).
4.3 Police / legal involvement (if applicable)
Tick and describe:
[ ] Police visit to room / building.
[ ] Police report filed (by whom, in what context).
[ ] Questioning about relics / belongings.
[ ] Seizure of items.
[ ] No formal action, but intimidation / fear.
Short neutral summary (3–8 sentences):
5. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
5.1 Relevant teachings
Tick what is most relevant:
[ ] dhātu – relics as supports for Buddhānussati, deserving safe, respectful housing.
[ ] dāna – offerings of relics and support (accommodation, safes) as serious karmic acts.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion and safety for monastics / students living with stress.
[ ] sacca / sammā-vācā – truthful, careful explanation to landlords / police.
[ ] appamāda – carefulness; not neglecting known risks.
[ ] hiri–ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing in ignoring vulnerable persons.
[ ] anicca / anattā – not clinging to institutional image at the cost of people and relics.
5.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment briefly:
[ ] Were relics and monastic/student safety treated as secondary to convenience or bureaucracy?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Were landlords / neighbours given calm, truthful information in a timely way?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did anyone rely on stereotypes / prejudice (nationality, monkhood, religion)?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Was there any attempt to apologise or repair harm after the incident?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences):
6. PEACE, CONFLICT & STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE
6.1 Galtung’s triangle
Contradictions (C) – underlying structural issues:
(e.g. “International monk with sacred relics” vs “landlord / police fear and no MCU policy or support”.)
Attitudes (A) – emotions and mind-states:
(e.g. fear, distrust, prejudice, shame, irritation, helplessness)
Behaviours (B) – observable actions:
(e.g. threats of eviction, ignoring letters, defensive speech, helpful mediation)
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
6.2 Types of violence
Tick if present:
[ ] Direct verbal or psychological harm (shouting, humiliation, threats).
[ ] Structural violence (lack of support, confusing processes, legal vulnerability).
[ ] Cultural violence (negative narratives about foreigners, monks, or relics).
[ ] Heritage violence (loss / damage / disrespect of relics).
Concrete examples (use roles / codes, not real names):
6.3 Peace & repair opportunities
Tick and describe:
[ ] BU could issue clear support documents (No-Objection, status letters).
[ ] Mediation between monk/student and landlord.
[ ] Education for landlords / neighbours about monastics and relics.
[ ] Safe transfer of relics to appropriate institutional housing.
[ ] Case-based training for staff on structural violence and H96 ethics.
Short peace-opportunity note:
7. GOVERNANCE, SDGs & INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
7.1 Governance gaps revealed
Tick and comment:
[ ] No policy for external housing of monastics / students with relics.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No clear procedure for issuing support letters for landlords / police.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No guidance on when relics may be kept in private rooms vs institutional spaces.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Poor coordination between faculty, dorm office, and central administration.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No risk assessment for relics held outside secure institutional settings.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
7.2 SDG links
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
How does this case affect relic safety, dignity, and long-term custodianship?
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
How do non-response, poor procedures, and structural neglect affect fairness and trust?
SDG 17 – Partnerships
How might this incident affect relations with donors, international partners, local community, landlords, and authorities?
8. CHRONOLOGY – HOUSING, LANDLORD & POLICE EVENTS
(Use more lines / attachments if needed.)
| Date | Event (move, complaint, letter, visit, incident) | Actor(s) (roles only) | Notes (response, impact, follow-up) |
|---|---|---|---|
| //____ | |||
| //____ | |||
| //____ | |||
| //____ |
Chronology attachment file code (if any): ____________________________
9. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE INDEX
9.1 Internal documents
| Code | Date | Type (request letter / email / memo / minutes) | From / to (roles only) | Short description | File location |
|---|
| | | | |
| | | | |
9.2 External documents
| Code | Date | Type (rental agreement / landlord letter / police report) | Institution / person (role) | Short description | File location |
|---|
| | | | |
| | | | |
9.3 Evidence assessment
Tick and comment:
[ ] Evidence clearly shows multiple attempts to seek institutional support.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Evidence indicates delays / silence / refusal by one or more offices.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Some parts of the story remain unclear or disputed.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
10. RISK & SAFEGUARDS
10.1 Risk assessment (during case)
A. Physical risk to relics:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Safety risk to person(s):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Legal / immigration / police risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (MCU, donors, Saṅgha, partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
10.2 Safeguards (existing or proposed)
Tick and describe:
[ ] Relics moved to safer institutional housing.
[ ] Clear written arrangement with landlord / new landlord.
[ ] New policy on external housing and relics.
[ ] Support letters and contact points for landlords / authorities.
[ ] Staff training on structural violence and international student protection.
Safeguards note:
11. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1 Options considered
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] Keep living in current housing with improved support.
[ ] Move to new housing with BU support / agreement.
[ ] Relics transferred to secure institutional location (e.g. temple / museum).
[ ] Formal complaint to BU or external body about neglect / discrimination.
[ ] Legal action / police complaint (if serious rights violations).
[ ] Mediation and reconciliation with landlord / neighbours.
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short summary of main options and their pros/cons:
11.2 Decisions taken
Decision(s):
Date(s): ____ / ____ / ______ and ____ / ____ / ______
Who decided? (roles only):
11.3 Recommendations (for BU & partners)
From a Buddhist–Peace–Governance perspective, what should change?
12. H96 REFLECTION & OVERALL RISK
H96 guiding question:
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian reviewed this external housing and landlord / police case, would they see careful trusteeship of relics and people, or neglect, fear, and attachment to bureaucracy or image?”
12.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what we did well or improved later):
Risky elements (where lobha, dosa, moha or negligence remain):
12.2 Overall risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
B. Peace / conflict risk (local / institutional / community):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
C. Heritage / relic governance risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
D. Reputational risk (MCU, Saṅgha, partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Short note:
13. SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
13.1 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / ethics / legal / peace committee):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
13.2 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 external housing, landlord & police case and how we tried to protect relics, faith, international monastics, and peace?)
