77-Year-Old Fined S$500 for Releasing Three Crows from NParks Trap in Toa Payoh

Three Freed Birds, a Fine and a Disrupted Public Operation

Tan See Chee, 77, was fined S$500 on January 27, 2026, after admitting that he cut cable ties and opened a National Parks Board (NParks) bird trap in Toa Payoh, allowing three house crows to escape. The fine, approximately US$394, followed an incident on October 20, 2025, that began when he spotted the trap from a bus.

Tan had also voluntarily paid S$370.60 to the contractor operating the trap, covering lost revenue, repairs and the work needed to restore the equipment. He made that payment on January 26, the day before sentencing. Together, the compensation and fine amounted to S$870.60.

Deputy Principal District Judge Ong Chin Rhu imposed the fine after considering the limited damage and Tan's compensation payment. The prosecution had asked for a fine rather than imprisonment, leaving the amount to the court. Tan paid the fine in full.

The charge was mischief causing disruption to the performance of a public agency function under Section 427(1)(b) of the Penal Code 1871. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, a fine, or both. In simple terms, the case concerned interference with an agency carrying out its work, as well as damage to equipment.

Tan's actions lasted only minutes, but the case brought attention to a difficult issue in Singapore's crowded urban environment: how personal concern for animals fits alongside organised efforts to protect residents and native wildlife. House crows are an invasive species, and NParks uses traps as part of a wider programme to manage their numbers.

Tan appeared hard of hearing during his court appearance and apologised for what he called a mistake. His explanation was brief, while the court heard details of the trap, the contractor's losses and the reasons authorities manage crow populations.

What Happened Near Block 181?

Tan was travelling by bus through Toa Payoh on October 20 when he noticed a large trap containing crows on a grass patch near Block 181, Lorong 4 Toa Payoh. He got off the bus and ate nearby before walking over to the trap.

Bird Management, a contractor working for NParks, operated the equipment. According to court documents, 10 birds were inside when Tan approached. He used scissors to cut the cable ties securing the trap netting and opened its door.

Three crows escaped. An employee of Bird Management saw what was happening through a closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring system and tried to intervene by using the trap's audio warning system. A verbal warning sounded through speakers, but Tan left the location and the birds flew away.

A wildlife lead at Bird Management lodged a police report that day. CCTV footage and subsequent investigations helped authorities identify Tan on October 22, two days after the incident.

The trap was part of an active wildlife management operation. Opening it interrupted the capture process and left staff with equipment that needed attention before it could return to service.

From the October Incident to January Sentencing

Tan was charged on December 16, 2025, almost two months after the birds were released. At that initial court appearance, he indicated through a court officer that he intended to plead guilty and would not engage a lawyer.

The proceedings concluded with sentencing on January 27, 2026. The main dates were:

• October 20, 2025: Tan cut the cable ties and opened the trap near Block 181, Lorong 4 Toa Payoh. Three crows escaped, and a police report was lodged that day.
• October 22, 2025: Authorities identified Tan through CCTV footage and investigations.
• December 16, 2025: Tan was charged with one count of mischief causing disruption to a public agency function and indicated his intention to plead guilty.
• January 26, 2026: He voluntarily paid S$370.60 in compensation.
• January 27, 2026: The court imposed a S$500 fine, which he paid in full.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Melissa Heng presented the facts at the sentencing hearing. She explained that NParks is Singapore's lead agency for wildlife management and uses several methods together, including trapping and removal, habitat management and public education.

What the Court Considered

Judge Ong considered both the disruption caused by Tan and the steps he took afterwards. His voluntary compensation covered the contractor's direct financial losses and the operational costs arising from the incident.

Tan, the defendant, offered a short apology during his mitigation plea, the part of a hearing when a person explains circumstances that may support a lighter sentence. He said:

I am sorry for doing a mistake.

The prosecution sought a financial penalty without proposing a specific amount. Judge Ong then set the fine at S$500, taking account of the limited damage and the compensation already paid.

Tan's advanced age, lack of criminal history, remorse and the limited scope of the disruption were among the circumstances surrounding the decision to impose a financial penalty. The fine was a small fraction of the maximum punishment available under the charge, although S$500 can still be substantial for a pensioner.

The compensation and fine served different purposes. The S$370.60 addressed the contractor's losses and restoration costs; the S$500 was the court's punishment for the offence. Paying compensation therefore still left Tan facing sentence for disrupting the operation.

Why the Charge Concerned a Public Agency Function

Section 427(1)(b) of the Penal Code 1871 covers mischief that causes disruption to the performance of a public agency function. Tan was prosecuted under that provision because the trap was being used in an NParks operation.

The law distinguishes ordinary property damage from damage or interference that obstructs an agency's work. Here, the immediate acts were cutting cable ties and opening the trap, while the wider consequence was disruption of an organised crow management programme.

Interference with public functions can affect more than the equipment itself. It can interrupt work connected with community safety, environmental management and the efficient use of staff and resources.

The maximum sentence gives courts a broad range of punishment. Singapore courts generally reserve imprisonment in such cases for circumstances involving substantial damage, repeated offending or malicious intent. Tan's case resulted in a fine after the court considered the scale of the damage and his response to it.

Why House Crows Are Managed

House crows, scientifically known as Corvus splendens, are not native to Singapore. Originally from the Indian subcontinent, they arrived through human activity and became established as an invasive species.

An invasive species is an animal or plant introduced outside its native area that can harm the environment where it spreads. For house crows, the concern includes their effects on local birds and their interactions with people.

Heng, the deputy public prosecutor, explained the ecological and safety concerns to the court:

House crows are an invasive non-native species in Singapore and pose a threat to local biodiversity. They are also very protective of their young and may attack if they feel threatened.

House crows compete with native birds for resources and raid nests for eggs and chicks. These behaviours affect biodiversity, meaning the variety of living things in an area. A growing population of an introduced bird can place pressure on species that already belong to the local ecosystem.

Crows can also become aggressive when protecting their young, particularly during the breeding season. Residents in places with high crow populations report swooping or diving incidents, including attacks they describe as unprovoked. Such encounters can put pedestrians, cyclists and people working outdoors at risk.

NParks describes crow management as a way to maintain ecological balance rather than an effort to eliminate wildlife. In an urban environment where natural predators are absent, invasive species can multiply rapidly, placing pressure on native ecosystems and making conditions more difficult for residents.

Noise, Droppings and Daily Life

Crow management also addresses everyday problems in neighbourhoods. Loud cawing can disturb residents, particularly early in the morning, while large groups resting together can leave substantial amounts of droppings.

These roosts can soil public spaces, buildings and vehicles. Acidic bird droppings can damage infrastructure, and deposits on walkways can create a risk of slipping.

Residents therefore encounter the issue in several ways: through noise around their homes, dirty shared spaces or defensive birds near nesting locations. The concerns extend beyond the number of birds visible at any one trap.

NParks combines removal with habitat management and public education because trapping addresses only part of that problem. Habitat management concerns the conditions in places where animals live, while public education helps residents understand wildlife and the measures used to manage it.

More Than 20,000 Crows Removed

Figures presented in court showed the scale of Singapore's crow management work. Between 2024 and 2025, NParks removed more than 12,000 crow nests and 20,000 individual crows from urban hotspots across the island.

The operation required contractors, specialised trapping equipment and monitoring systems. Each trap formed part of that wider effort, with staff responsible for checking equipment and responding when something went wrong.

NParks nevertheless observed an increase in public feedback about crow issues between 2023 and 2025. The figures for removals and feedback cover different periods: the removal totals span 2024 and 2025, while the rise in feedback runs from 2023 through 2025.

The increase could reflect crow population growth, urban encroachment into crow habitats or greater public awareness and reporting. The reason was not established. Each possibility points to a continuing management challenge, whether more birds are creating problems or more residents are bringing existing problems to official attention.

The court figures also show why freeing three birds had a consequence beyond that brief moment at the trap. NParks was coordinating a large programme, and damaged equipment required staff time that otherwise could have supported ongoing operations.

How Three Crows Led to S$370.60 in Compensation

NParks pays its contractors S$20 for each captured crow. Releasing three birds therefore cost Bird Management S$60 in lost revenue.

That amount was only part of the contractor's loss. Tan paid S$370.60, approximately S$370, after labour and trap restoration costs were included. Subtracting the S$60 in lost capture revenue leaves S$310.60 for the other costs covered by the payment.

Heng explained that the bulk of the compensation concerned the time employees spent travelling to the site, assessing the damage, repairing the trap and restoring it to working order. Cutting a few cable ties could be done quickly, but returning the equipment to service required several steps.

The restoration process also helped ensure that the trap remained functional and humane, meeting animal welfare standards while serving its purpose in population control. Staff had to address the damaged equipment as well as the escaped birds.

The payment explains why the financial consequences exceeded the value assigned to three captured crows. The contractor lost capture revenue and had to pay for work needed to resume the operation.

Compassion and the Limits on Interference

Tan's case drew divided public reactions. Some people discussing it online sympathised with him and speculated that he felt sorry for birds they believed were going to be culled. His apology expressed remorse, but he did not give a detailed account of his motivation.

The sight of animals inside a trap can produce a strong emotional response. Some residents value wildlife and feel uncomfortable with lethal control methods even when they understand the ecological reasons for managing an invasive species. For an older person focused on the birds directly in front of him, an immediate act of kindness may carry more emotional weight than a wider conservation programme.

Authorities regard unauthorised interference as a disruption to professionally managed work. When Tan was charged, police said they took a serious view of such acts of mischief and would act against people who damaged public property or equipment deployed for public functions.

NParks typically places signs at trap locations warning that CCTV monitoring is in use and advising people to keep their distance. In Tan's case, the contractor also tried to intervene through the audio system while watching remotely.

The case highlighted the need for public understanding of wildlife management practices and the laws protecting those operations. Residents may know that birds are being trapped without understanding the scale of the programme or the legal consequences of opening a trap.

Releasing animals without authorisation can disrupt data collection, waste public resources and create risks if aggressive birds return to troublesome nesting locations. Tan's sentence brought the immediate damage and the wider public purpose into the same case: three birds escaped, a contractor's work was interrupted, and the court imposed a fine after considering his remorse and compensation.

At a Glance

• Tan See Chee, 77, was fined S$500 on January 27, 2026, for releasing three crows from an NParks trap in Toa Payoh.
• He cut cable ties and opened the trap near Block 181, Lorong 4 Toa Payoh, on October 20, 2025. It contained 10 birds when he arrived.
• Tan paid S$370.60 in compensation on January 26 and later paid his fine in full.
• The contractor lost S$60 in capture revenue, with the remaining compensation covering other costs associated with repairs and restoration.
• The offence under Section 427(1)(b) of the Penal Code 1871 carries a maximum of 10 years in prison, a fine, or both.
• NParks removed more than 12,000 crow nests and 20,000 crows during 2024 and 2025, while public feedback about crow issues increased between 2023 and 2025.
• House crows are an invasive species that threaten native biodiversity and can attack when protecting their young.