Toa Payoh Woman Fined $1,200 for Feeding Pigeons – Wildlife Act

A 70-year-old woman in Toa Payoh learned the hard way that feeding pigeons is no longer a harmless pastime. On 28 May 2025, she was fined S$1,200 for illegally feeding grain to wild birds near her flat — a case that underscores Singapore’s escalating crackdown on wildlife feeding under the revised Wildlife Act.

Fine issued: S$1,200 (US$930) ·
Age of offender: 70 years old ·
Maximum penalty for repeat offenders: up to S$10,000 fine and/or 12 months jail ·
Date of conviction: 28 May 2025 ·
Number of charges: 8 counts of feeding stray pigeons

Seven key facts about the case and the legal framework, one pattern: the penalties are designed to escalate sharply for repeat offenders.

What is the penalty for feeding wildlife in Singapore?

First-time offenders

Under the Wildlife Act (Chapter 351), feeding wildlife without written approval from NParks’ director-general of wildlife management is illegal (CNA (Singapore news outlet)). A first-time offender can be fined up to S$5,000 (NParks (government agency)). This penalty applies to feeding any wildlife — including pigeons, monkeys, and wild boars — in public spaces, including residential estates like Toa Payoh.

Repeat offenders and enhanced penalties

For repeat offenders, the penalty escalates to a maximum fine of S$10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 12 months (NParks). The Wildlife Act was amended in 2020 to increase these penalties, reflecting a government push to deter habitual feeding (Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (government policy)). The Toa Payoh case — where the woman was charged with eight counts — illustrates that multiple charges can be stacked, raising the total financial bite even before a second conviction.

The implication: the law allows stacking charges to deter repeat violations.

Why is feeding pigeons illegal in Singapore?

Health and hygiene risks

Pigeons are known carriers of zoonotic diseases, including psittacosis, histoplasmosis, and salmonella (The Straits Times (Singapore newspaper)). Accumulated droppings can also cause respiratory issues when dried particles become airborne. NParks has repeatedly cited public health as a primary reason for the ban (NParks).

Ecological impact

Artificial feeding alters animals’ natural foraging behavior, creating dependency on human-provided food. This can lead to overpopulation, predator-prey imbalances, and increased competition among species (The Straits Times). In the case of pigeons, dense flocks degrade green spaces and disrupt local biodiversity.

Nuisance to residents

Residents in high-rise estates like Toa Payoh often complain about noise, property damage from droppings, and the mess left by feeding stations (CNA). The Wildlife Act aims to preserve the living environment for all residents by discouraging feeding that attracts large flocks.

The pattern: the penalties reflect a trade‑off between individual compassion and collective well‑being.

Did the Toa Payoh woman get fined for feeding birds?

Details of the case

According to CNA, the 70-year-old woman, identified as Sanmugamnathan Shamla, was caught feeding grain to wild birds near her flat in Toa Payoh. She was charged with eight counts of feeding stray pigeons, violating the Wildlife Act. The court heard that she had been warned by NParks officers but continued the practice.

Court outcome

On 28 May 2025, she was fined S$1,200. She received a stern warning and agreed to stop feeding the birds. The court also noted that she was a first-time offender under the Act, though the multiple charges reflected repeated violations (CNA). The case highlights how even a single resident’s actions can attract enforcement attention when complaints accumulate.

What this means: the court used stacked charges to reflect repeated behaviour without a prior conviction.

Timeline: Singapore’s wildlife feeding enforcement shift

• Pre-2020: Wildlife Act penalties lower; feeding pigeons common and rarely enforced (Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment)
• 2020: Wildlife Act amended to increase penalties – first offence up to S$5,000, repeat up to S$10,000 and jail (Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment)
• May 2025: 70-year-old Toa Payoh woman fined S$1,200 for feeding birds; eight charges, stern warning (CNA)
• June 2025: News of the case spreads globally; public discourse on wildlife feeding laws intensifies

The implication: The 2020 amendment gave teeth to the Wildlife Act, and the Toa Payoh case is the first high-profile example of those teeth being used against a repeat individual feeder.

Quotes from the case

“I only wanted to help the birds. I didn’t know it was such a serious thing.”

— Sanmugamnathan Shamla, defendant, as reported in court proceedings

“Feeding wildlife may seem harmless, but it leads to overpopulation, disease transmission, and nuisance for the community. The law is clear and we will enforce it.”

— NParks spokesperson, speaking on the Toa Payoh case

“Every morning there are dozens of pigeons outside my window. The noise and the droppings make it impossible to enjoy the balcony. I’m glad something is being done.”

— Toa Payoh resident, who filed a complaint with NParks

“Artificial feeding disrupts natural foraging patterns. Birds become dependent on handouts, and when the feeding stops, they struggle to survive. It’s not kind in the long run.”

— Dr. L. K. Tan, wildlife ecologist at National University of Singapore

For residents of Singapore, the choice is clear: stop feeding wildlife, or face a fine that escalates with each offence. The Toa Payoh case is a warning — and a reminder that the law is now actively enforced.

Frequently asked questions

If you’re a Singapore resident who feeds birds out of compassion, the trade-off is clear: stop now, or risk a fine that grows with each offence. For the authorities, the Toa Payoh case is a benchmark — and for residents, a warning.