Singapore’s Culling of Wildlife
In recent years, Singapore’s booming smooth-coated otter (Lutrogale perspicillata) population has become a source of public concern in some areas[1], sparking debate on the viability of culling as a population management solution.
Singapore has no published policy regarding culling. Instead, it is commonly emphasised in both media briefings[2] and Parliamentary debates[3] that culling is only done as a “last resort”. Mr Tan Kiat How, Senior Minister of State for National Development, has also cited a “science-based approach” involving population and behavioural studies to its culling decision-making. Yet, Singapore has routinely engaged in the culling of its wildlife in recent decades. It is therefore important to evaluate whether Singapore’s culling policy truly functions on necessity. In this article, we will consider: (i) the justifications offered by authorities for culling, (ii) alternative solutions to culling, including those that have or have not already been incorporated into Singapore’s wildlife management measures, and (iii) the effectiveness of the various solutions.
This article will draw on the case studies of Singapore’s efforts to manage wild boars (Sus scrofa) and long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) to elucidate the principles and effectiveness of culling practice, before applying those findings to the context of the smooth-coated otter population. The analysis will advocate a path forward that does not involve their culling.
Why cull? Reasons given for culling
(A) Wild boars
The main justifications for the culling of wild boars appear to consist of two categories: to mitigate environmental damage and protect public safety. This can be deduced from an article published in The Straits Times’ Forum section in 2012, titled “Why wild boars have to be culled”[4]. It was co-authored by key local wildlife authorities, including the Director of Conservation at National Parks Board Singapore (NParks) and President of the Nature Society (Singapore). The article listed several negative impacts that wild boars were having in Singapore, which can be summarised under those two main categories. These problems were exacerbated by the fact that the wild boar population was already too large within Singapore’s forests, and still surging. The article defended NParks’ proposal to conduct culls of wild boars as “ecologically sound and well-justified”.
(B) Long-tailed macaques
In contrast, a press briefing by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) in 2015 stated the primary reason for culling macaques to be regarding “safety and nuisance”[5]. The culling of macaques was done in response to “public feedback” of macaques stealing food, showing aggressive behaviours, or ransacking cars and houses. While the AVA said that they targeted more aggressive and nuisance-causing monkeys, it is unclear how it differentiated between these individuals from peaceful ones. Further, the date does not show any immediately obvious relationship between the volume of feedback received and amount of culling done. In 2013, AVA received 1870 complaints about macaques and killed 570 macaques (about a third of Singapore’s macaque population). In 2015, AVA received 750 complaints and killed 630 macaques[6].
The culling strategy for macaques may be disproportionate to its purported goals of promoting safety and reducing instances of nuisance. Mr Louis Ng, then chief executive of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES), said at the time that it “seems like we’re trying to exterminate the monkeys, not manage the conflicts between them and people”[7].
Alternatives to culling
Singapore has concurrently implemented several other solutions to manage human-animal interactions with both wild boars and long-tailed macaques.
1. Public education. Resources have been invested into increasing public education about both species. Since NParks fully took over animal management duties from the AVA in 2019[8], it conducted webinars, talks, and programmes, and created online resources and advisories for members of the public. For example, the “Our Wild Neighbours”[9] initiative was launched in 2022 to educate Singaporeans about coexistence with wildlife, providing advice on safely dealing with interactions with wild animals including boars and macaques.
2. Legislation. An amendment to Singapore’s Wildlife Act 1965, s 5A(1)(3)(a)[10] made it an offence to intentionally feed wildlife, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 (for a first offence). The hope is that if humans stop feeding wild animals, the animals will not see people as a food source and approach humans less. This would decrease the encroachment of wildlife into urban environments.
3. Physical barriers. There have also been efforts to physically restrict both species from reaching human areas[11]. This includes setting up exclusion fencing and “cattle grids” (grating with large gaps that wild boars cannot walk across) at strategic points to prevent wild boars from crossing out of forested areas, or setting up “monkey-proof” bins (bins with heavier lids that macaques can less easily open and rummage through) in estates[12]. “Monkey guarding” is also being carried out by volunteers at the Jane Goodall Institute Singapore and Long Tailed Macaque Working Group[13]. This entails patrolling hotspots of high human-macaque conflict to drive monkeys away from certain areas.
4. Removal of food sources. For wild boars specifically, NParks has also engaged in the removal of oil palm plants from forests in Singapore[14]. The presence of oil palm plantations was previously seen as a central reason for the wild boar population explosion as oil palm seeds and fruit are a favoured food source for them.
However, given that these measures have been implemented together with culling, it can be inferred that the authorities do not consider them as adequate alternatives to culling.
Two further alternatives that Singapore has not adopted are:
1. Relocation. The relocation of animals is commonly considered as an alternative to culling. However, this solution has been rejected by authorities for both boars[15] and macaques[16] due to Singapore’s small land size – there is no patch of forest isolated enough that similar problems would not persist wherever any animals would be relocated to.
2. Sterilisation. Another alternative would be to implement a mass contraceptive or sterilisation programme as a population management solution. Hong Kong set a precedent for this in 2007, sterilising 1,937 rhesus macaques between 2007 and 2022[17]. However, the approach has not been adopted in Singapore. Professor Michael Gumert from Nanyang Technological University (NTU), however, warned that the sterilisation of monkeys could change the social dynamics of monkey troops in unpredictable ways[18], raising questions about the ethics of such a solution.
How effective are these measures?
(A) Wild boars
Since the urgent call for culling was issued in 2012, Singapore’s wild boar population has decreased drastically. According to a study by Khoo et al[19], the population density for wild boars in Singapore nature reserves was around 6.57 pigs/km2 in 2019 and 5.22 pigs/km2 in 2020. While noting the need for caution in direct comparison with the estimate of 266 pigs/km2 in 2012 (which was a measure of a specific problematic area of forest rather than across the forested areas in Singapore), it is immediately evident that the density of wild boars is at a much more manageable number. Mr Tan Kiat How also said that “studies by NParks”[20] in 2023 characterised the wild boar population as “stable” and lower than in researched areas in Malaysia and Indonesia. With the density of wild boars now within the carrying capacity of forests (meaning that Singapore’s forests can sustain the current number of wild boars indefinitely), it can be surmised that the rationale of environmental damage for culling boars has been – for now – achieved.
However, it is not clear that culling was the primary reason for this sustained drop in wild boar numbers. A study also done on wild boars in the UK found that culling alone was ineffectual at decreasing population size[21]. The population could only be decreased sustainably if culling was implemented in conjunction with sterilisation efforts, which were not conducted in Singapore.
Instead, the removal of oil palms might have had a greater causative role to play, considering its direct effect on wild boar populations seen elsewhere in the world. In a study done in Peninsular Malaysia, wild boar nest occurrences fell hundredfold during the replanting of over 95% of oil palm plants between 2001 and 2006, before rebounding by a hundredfold in the first 4 years following 2006 when the replanted plants started fruiting again[22]. In the absence of their favoured food source, it appears that the reproductive rates of wild boars would drop dramatically, effectively arresting population growth. The study rejects other possible sources of the drop and subsequent recovery of the wild boar population – in fact, alternative food sources were more plentiful in the period that wild boar numbers fell, while human hunting and the density of wild boar predators in the region did not appreciably increase. While culling would have caused an initial drop in the wild boar population, the removal of oil palms decreased the size of future boar generations. Over a period of 11 years — longer than the average lifespan of a wild boar — it is conceivable to suggest that the drop in wild boar population might be more readily attributable to the removal of oil palms than culling.
Although the population of wild boars has decreased, the volume of incidents with the public has not. Ms Anbarasi Boopal, chief executive of ACRES, reported an increase in the number of calls made by the public regarding sightings and complaints about wild boars, from 87 in 2020 to 102 in 2021, and 34 calls in the first two months of 2022 alone[23]. That said, it could be that most of the calls were peaceful sightings as NParks only handled nine wild boar incidents across Singapore each year in 2020 and 2021, eight in 2022, and two as of May 2023[24]. On the other hand, this was higher than in 2012, where NParks was receiving up to five reports from members of the public a month (up to 60 a year) of “encounters” with wild boars[25].
Given that the population of wild boars has decreased over this same period, the dominant factor could have been instead the development of more estates closer to forested areas and nature reserves, such as in Tengah. This will inevitably increase the volume of wild boar-human interactions, making any measures taken to prevent them (including culling, exclusion fencing, and cattle grids) mitigatory and reactive in nature. Following this line of reasoning, it may be argued that wild boars should continue being culled for the goal of decreasing threat to public safety, despite culling not being the most effective method of population control.
Dr N Sivasothi, a biologist and lecturer at NUS, also agrees with the culling of individual wild boars that find themselves stranded within urban areas, believing that authorities reacted “very well” to a recent situation where a wild boar injured a woman and was trapped and euthanised in Yishun Park[26].
(B) Long-tailed macaques
In the case of macaques, culling has appeared wholly ineffective to prevent nuisance. In the mid 2010s, the macaque population would experience sharp spikes seemingly independent of culling statistics – macaques numbered between 1,810 and 2,166 in 2012[27], but numbered more than 2,000 according to a census conducted in 2015[28], two years after a third of their population was culled. Meanwhile, the number of complaints regarding macaques rose from 750 in 2015 to 910 in 2016 (after 630 macaques were culled in 2015)[29], and the Government has received about 2,500 cases of feedback (including non-confrontational sightings) on macaques per year from 2017 to June 2022[30]. Evidently, culling is not an effective measure to prevent nuisance caused by macaques.
The failure of culling to sustainably decrease the macaque population replicates multiple studies on the culling of mammals around the world. In addition to the study on the culling of wild boars in the UK, culling as also not been effective at decreasing the populations of sika deer in Japan[31] or feral cats in Tasmania[32]. Mr Louis Ng explained the mechanics of such failure in Parliament[33]:
“The culling of monkeys is similarly ineffective as it is usually the young ones who get trapped. The mother monkey which lost her young goes into heat again, the male monkey mates with her and another baby is born, replacing the monkey which was killed. If we somehow manage to kill an entire troop, the neighbouring troop will then take over the territory of the troop who were killed, with more resources, they breed more and, sooner than later, we will have the same number of monkeys again.”<
Meanwhile, the sterilisation programme adopted in Hong Kong has appeared more successful. The number of monkey nuisance cases received by Hong Kong’s Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) fell dramatically from a high of 1,400 cases in 2007 to around 200 cases in 2021 and 2022 each[34]. Meanwhile, a study conducted in Bali, Indonesia has determined that female long-tailed macaques that had been sterilised did not experience any deterioration in social status in the short-term[35]. More study remains to be done to track any changes in social status over longer periods of time. For now, however, this mitigates Professor Gumert’s concerns about unpredictable changes in social dynamics of monkey troops, increasing the viability of sterilisation as a genuine alternative to culling.
Will we need to cull the otters?
Singapore’s smooth-coated otter population has exploded from 79 individuals in 2017 to more than 170 in 2021. To recap the Singaporean government’s primary justifications for culling, there are three: environmental damage (as seen with wild boars), public nuisance (as seen with long-tailed macaques), and a threat to public safety (as seen with both species). There is a case for culling otters under the latter two of those three justifications.
(A) Otters are not causing too much environmental damage
The proliferation of otter families in Singapore has not appeared to cause an excessive amount of environmental damage. Local waterways are abundant with fast-breeding fish such as tilapia that can sustain the growing otter population[36]. There is very little basis for culling otters on these grounds.
(B) Otters cause a threat to public safety
A stronger argument for culling otters is the threat they may pose to public safety. In 2021, two high-profile instances of otters attacking humans occurred. In May, a 77-year-old man was bitten on the leg while exercising near Kallang River[37]. In December, a family of otters caused a man in his 60s to fall and bit him 26 times in 10 seconds, causing him to think he “was going to die”[38]. At least three further attacks have been documented since then[39]. There is therefore a case to cull otters in the interests of public safety, just like for wild boars and macaques.
However, otter attacks are both less severe than wild boar attacks and less frequent than macaque attacks. Smooth-coated otters have one of the lowest bite forces of the otter family, with bites that cause less damage and are at lower risk of systemic infection than cats or dogs[40]. According to Dr Sivasothi[41], who is a Member of the IUCN-SSC Otter Specialist Group, people who compare the respective threats to safety posed by otters and wild boars “don’t understand how fierce and tough wild pigs can be”. Dr Sivasothi also explained the severity of the otter attack in December 2021 as being made “unfortunate” by the man falling to the ground, which allowed otters to cause damage that they are typically unable to. Meanwhile, otters simply come into conflict with humans less than macaques do, due to their high “coexistence factor” (meaning that otters and humans can live in close proximity with each other without experiencing significant competition) and smaller population. In 2020 and 2021, NParks received 208 and 305 citizen reports about otters respectively[42], compared to 2,500 cases of feedback about macaques for each of those years. Therefore, there is far less reason to cull otters in the name of public safety, compared to culling either wild boars or macaques.
(C) Otters are a source of public nuisance
Otters are also a source of public nuisance and property damage. They frequently raid ponds to hunt and eat pet fish, costing one homeowner up to $64,000 worth of valuable koi[43]. They also dig up grass patches in urban areas and stop traffic[44]. If this trend of public nuisance increases, one might compare it to the long-tailed macaque situation and justify culling of otters in the same way.
However, if public nuisance is the primary justification for culling, then the increase in nuisance complaints for macaques in recent years despite extensive culling might mean culling is an ineffective tool for preventing public nuisance from the animals. NParks would do well to learn from its experiences with macaques and avoid making the same mistake of needlessly culling these valuable members of Singapore’s unique ecosystem.
(D) Availability of an alternative to culling
Crucially, authorities have found it viable to implement one option that was considered infeasible for macaques: relocation. In October 2022, Dr Sivasothi and the Otter Working Group, which comprises NParks, wildlife experts, and citizens, successfully conducted a relocation of one family of otters that had been raiding “up to 10 homes in one night” at a residential estate in Seletar to an undisclosed location[45]. While no explanation was offered as to why otters can be relocated while macaques cannot, it is possible that this is so because otters are less able to move quickly through urban areas or tracts of forest, or that there are existing areas in Singapore where otters can thrive without coming into excessive contact with humans. The availability of this measure for otter management, in addition to others such as mending gates and erecting otter-proof barriers around ponds, is a critical factor that could prevent the need for authorities to consider culling.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there have been three reasons given by Singaporean authorities for the culling of Singapore’s mammalian wildlife. Culling wild boars for environmental reasons was justified, but the size of Singapore’s boar population is now such that there is no longer as pressing a need for it as there was a decade ago. Culling monkeys to minimise nuisance complaints from the public, however, has appeared ineffective, and alternative solutions such as sterilisation should be considered. Lastly, culling individual animals on a case-by-case basis for public safety is a regrettable necessity.
Meanwhile, the smooth-coated otter population, while growing, does not yet warrant culling, especially when non-lethal methods such as relocation have shown promise. Moving forward, it is essential that Singapore commits to its claim of using science-based, humane, and sustainable solutions to wildlife management, learning from past experiences to avoid the pitfalls of unjustified or ineffectual culling.
Footnotes:
[1] Kelliher, F. (2022) Slippery, hungry, sometimes angry: Singapore struggles with ‘unparalleled’ otter boom, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/23/slippery-hungry-sometimes-angry-singapore-struggles-with-unparalleled-otter-boom (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[2] Begum, S. (2024) 19 wild boars in Bukit Panjang put down since May after attacks; fences being installed, The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/23/slippery-hungry-sometimes-angry-singapore-struggles-with-unparalleled-otter-boom (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[3] Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (20 February 2012) vol 94 (Dr Koh Poh Koon, Minister of State for National Development)
[4] Why wild boars have to be culled (the straits times forum, Saturday 16 June 2012) (2012) Raffles Museum News III (2007 – 2014). Available at: https://rafflesmuseum.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/why-wild-boars-have-to-be-culled-the-straits-times-forum-saturday-16-june-2012/(Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[5] Zengkun, F. (2016) To cull or not to cull pesky monkeys, The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/to-cull-or-not-to-cull-pesky-monkeys (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[6] Ming En, S. (2023) The big read: As Animal Encounters hit the headlines, a divide opens up, TODAY. Available at: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/big-read-animal-encounters-hit-headlines-divide-opens (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[7] More than monkey business (2022) Kontinentalist. Available at: https://kontinentalist.com/stories/macaques-are-not-dangerous-or-aggressive-if-we-leave-them-alone (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[8] Wei, T.T. (2022) Wildlife Management Framework enhanced to curb risk of human-wildlife conflicts, The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/wildlife-management-framework-enhanced-to-curb-risk-of-human-wildlife-conflicts (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[9] (2022) Our Wild Neighbours. Available at: https://www.ourwildneighbours.sg/about-own (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[10] Wildlife Act (Cap. 351, 2020 Rev Ed Sing), s 5A.
[11] Begum, S. (2024a) 19 wild boars in Bukit Panjang put down since May after attacks; fences being installed, The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/19-wild-boars-in-bukit-panjang-put-down-since-may-after-attacks-fences-being-installed (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[12] Zengkun, F. (2016) To cull or not to cull pesky monkeys, The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/to-cull-or-not-to-cull-pesky-monkeys (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[13] Lew, V. (2020) Monkey guarding, Jane Goodall Institute (Singapore). Available at: https://janegoodall.org.sg/monkey-guarding/#:~:text=An%20important%20aspect%20of%20Monkey,aspect%20of%20Monkey%20Guarding%20%E2%80%93%20outreach (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[14] Ang, Q. and Soh, G. (2023) Boar Boom in Singapore. Available at: https://www.nus.edu.sg/newshub/news/2023/2023-02/2023-02-23/BOAR-st-23feb-pA6.pdf (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[15] (2012) Nature Society (Singapore)’s Position Paper on Wild Pigs in Singapore. Available at: http://nss.preview.orion5.iwi.com.sg/report/92a2f783-aWild%20Pigs%20in%20Singapore%20211012.pdf (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[16] Long-tailed macaque (2022) Our Wild Neighbours. Available at: https://www.ourwildneighbours.sg/our-wild-neighbours/long-tailed-macaque (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[17] Updates on the Monkey Contraceptive/Sterilisation Programme: Findings from the Population Viability Analysis (2023) ACE-NC. Available at: <https: data-preserve-html-node="true"//www.eeb.gov.hk/sites/default/files/en/node5840/ACE-NC_P3_2023.pdf> (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[18] Zengkun, F. (2016) To cull or not to cull pesky monkeys.
[19] Max D.Y. Khoo, Bryan. T.M. Lim, Malcolm C.K. Soh, Rebecca H.Y. Loy, H.K. Lua, Benjamin. P.Y.-H. Lee, Adrian H.B. Loo, Kenneth B.H. Er, (2021). Persistence of a locally endangered mouse-deer amidst the re-emergence of two larger ungulates in small urban rainforest fragments. Global Ecology and Conservation (Vo. 30). 2021, e01807, ISSN 2351-9894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01807.
[20] Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (03 July 2023) vol 95 (Tan Kiat How, Senior Minister of State for National Development).
[21] Croft, S., Franzetti, B., Gill, R., & Massei, G. (2020). Too many wild boar? Modelling fertility control and culling to reduce wild boar numbers in isolated populations. In E. Serrano (Ed.), PLOS ONE (Vol. 15, Issue 9, p. e0238429). Public Library of Science (PLoS). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238429.
[22] Luskin, M.S., Brashares, J.S., Ickes, K. et al. Cross-boundary subsidy cascades from oil palm degrade distant tropical forests. Nat Commun 8, 2231 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01920-7.
[23] Woon, W. (2022) Recent wild boar incidents in Singapore: When, where and what happened, The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/recent-wild-boar-incidents-in-singapore-when-where-and-what-happened?close=true (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[24] Koh, W.T. (2023) Bukit Panjang Wild Boar attacks: More traps to be placed, fences extended after 2 injured, CNA. Available at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/wild-boars-bukit-panjang-attack-residents-precautions-3541846#:~:text=The%20agency%20added%20that%20it,%2C%20according%20to%20NParks’%20website (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[25] Ang, Q. and Soh, G. (2023) Boar Boom in Singapore. Available at: https://www.nus.edu.sg/newshub/news/2023/2023-02/2023-02-23/BOAR-st-23feb-pA6.pdf (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[26] Tan, A. (2022) Are otters treated differently from wild boars in s’pore due to ‘pretty privilege’? Available at: <https: data-preserve-html-node="true"//mothership.sg/2022/05/otters-pretty-privilege/> (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[27] Riley Koenig, Crystal & Jayasri, Srikantan & Gumert, Michael. (2015). Results of a nationwide census of the long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) population of Singapore. The Raffles bulletin of zoology. 63. 503-515.
[28] About 2,500 cases of monkey-related feedback received in Singapore each year (2022) CNA. Available at: <https: data-preserve-html-node="true"//www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/monkeys-macaques-otters-nparks-wildlife-2851816> (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[29] Ming En, S. (2023) The big read: As Animal Encounters hit the headlines, a divide opens up, TODAY. Available at: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/big-read-animal-encounters-hit-headlines-divide-opens (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[30] Lee, D. (2022) Written Answer by Ministry of National Development on long-term strategy in managing wildlife populations and incursions by wildlife into urban space, Written answer by Ministry of National Development on long-term strategy in managing wildlife populations and incursions by wildlife into urban space. Available at: https://www.mnd.gov.sg/newsroom/parliament-matters/q-as/view/written-answer-by-ministry-of-national-development-on-long-term-strategy-in-managing-wildlife-populations-and-incursions-by-wildlife-into-urban-space (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[31] Enoki T, Yabe T and Koizumi T, ‘Changes in Spatial Patterns of Sika Deer Distribution and Herbivory of Planted Seedlings: A Comparison before and after Deer Population Control by Culling’ 84 <a data-preserve-html-node="true" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10310-015-0515-0"http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10310-015-0515-0
[32] Lazenby BT, Mooney NJ and Dickman CR, ‘Effects of Low-Level Culling of Feral Cats in Open Populations: A Case Study from the Forests of Southern Tasmania’ 407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR14030.
[33] Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (12 February 2019) vol 94 (Louis Ng Kok Kwang, Nee Soon).
[34] Updates on the Monkey Contraceptive/Sterilisation Programme: Findings from the Population Viability Analysis (2023) ACE-NC. Available at: https://www.eeb.gov.hk/sites/default/files/en/node5840/ACE-NC_P3_2023.pdf (Accessed: 27 January 2025).
[35] Giraud G and others, ‘Effect of Infant Presence on Social Networks of Sterilized and Intact Wild Female Balinese Macaques (Macaca Fascicularis)’ 2538 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11092538.
[36] Sng, K. (2019) Otter-ly cute: the success of otters in the urban waterways of Singapore. Available at: https://blog.nus.edu.sg/urbaneco/2020/04/19/otter-ly-cute-the-success-of-otters-in-the-urban-waterways-of-singapore/#:~:text=Otters%20mainly%20eat%20fish%20(piscivorous,wild%20(Turrell%2C%202020). (Accessed: 2025).
[37] Thirumaran, A. ‘I was glued to the spot’: Elderly man attacked by Otter along kallang river (2021) AsiaOne. Available at: https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/i-was-glued-spot-elderly-man-attacked-otter-along-kallang-river (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[38] Chua, N. (2022) ‘I actually thought I was going to die’: Man who was attacked by otters at Botanic Gardens, The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/i-actually-thought-i-was-going-to-die-man-who-was-attacked-by-otters-at (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[39] Chua, S. (2024) The emergence of Otter attacks in Singapore: A case series and strategies for Management, Annals Singapore. Available at: https://annals.edu.sg/the-emergence-of-otter-attacks-in-singapore-a-case-series-and-strategies-for-management/ (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid., [26].
[42] Ibid., [1].
[43] Ibid., [1].
[44] Watch: Otters in Singapore Cross Road with police escort (2022) BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-60720259 (Accessed: 28 January 2025).
[45] Tan, K.H. ‘Living in our City in Nature means we co-exist with wildlife like otters and get to observe them in our midst.’ Facebook (17 October 2022). Available at: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=544557474145536&id=100057738653368&_rdr (Accessed: 28 January 2025)