Debated in Parliament on 8 Nov 2022.
And perhaps video clips and other communications material can be rolled out to a mass audience featuring such anti-bullying ambassadors.
Next, Madam, let me move onto the subject of loot boxes and other gambling-like elements in electronic games. Madam, I have asked several Parliamentary Questions about this subject. The most recent was in 2019 which elicited the reply that the Remote Gambling Act (RGA) would apply to loot boxes, only if the loot thus obtained could potentially be converted into real world money. To quote from that 2019 reply, "Given the randomness of the prizes in loot boxes, they are a game of chance. However, whether the loot boxes are considered a form of gambling under the RGA, depends on whether there are in-game facilities that allow players to convert game credits or any in-game items, for example, weapons and skills, to real-world money or merchandises."
I also spoke about this subject in the 2020 MHA Committee of Supply (COS) debate, pointing out that loot boxes, a consumable virtual item used to redeem a randomised selection of further virtual items, are increasingly seen, in some quarters, as a form of gambling. I highlighted that from a study by academics at the University of York, there is some evidence linking loot boxes to problem gambling.
Belgium has banned loot boxes purchased using real money. The UK National Health Services (NHS) have also called for the industry to ban loot boxes. Its mental health director Claire Murdoch warned that these were in danger of "setting kids up for addiction."
Since my 2020 speech in this House, fresh research has strengthened the evidence of a causative link between loot boxes and problem gambling. A report produced by researchers at the universities of Plymouth and Wolverhampton in UK, as reported by the BBC in April 2021, found that loot boxes "are structurally and psychologically akin to gambling."
According to the study in the UK, "Of the 93% of children who play video games, up to 40% opened loot boxes. Twelve out of 13 studies on the topic have established 'unambiguous' connections to problem gambling behaviour…The big spenders – the crucial 5% for the industry – can spend more than £70 or £100 a month on the boxes", the report said.
A report from the Norwegian Consumer Council from May 2022 suggests that some of these in-game gambling-like elements "contribute to a sense of anticipation and reward and are presumably designed to trigger dopamine releases that keep the player opening packs."
Madam, my concern is that, aside from young children spending money in something that is potentially of little benefit, there is the risk that our young children playing these games, or perhaps a significant minority of them craving that dopamine hit, could experience changes in their brain chemistry that would render them more susceptible to problem gambling as adults. The studies I cited shows that there is some evidence to support this.
Madam, problem gambling is a serious social problem. While it affects a small percentage of the population directly, the financial losses and social harm they generate can easily affect their family members and loved ones.
I am glad to note that the Gambling Regulatory Authority announced in August this year that it is looking at loot boxes. I hope that stronger action will be taken against such elements in games, beyond just a dollar cap.
To be sure, electronic games can nurture positive traits, such as strategic thinking, information processing and mental agility. But the elements in some games which suggest that players can pay to play, but with randomised results, could well result in mental habituation and attraction towards gambling later in life.
If the Government will not ban such elements outright, as I hope it will, I hope, at the very least, that it would mandate warning labels on games that would draw parents' attention to the potential links to problem gambling. That would serve as a nudge to game developers to remove such elements from their games. I hope that such measures can be incorporated into the subsidiary legislation for this Bill or to another Act.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, one of the greatest challenges for safety in the online universe is anonymity. Users need not disclose their true identities and profiles. Rogues, under this dark cover, send out harmful content. The proposals to require OCSs with significant reach to comply with the new Code of Practice will go some way to reduce Singapore users' exposure to such materials.
I have a clarification regarding the term "Singapore users". Does this apply to all users who register, or have accounts set up in Singapore, or base their Internet Protocol (IP) addresses in Singapore at the point of registration? In addition, do the restrictions apply at point of access subsequently, namely their IP addresses?
Another query is about Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) which are increasingly popular with users. With VPNs, how would the Ministry ensure that Singapore users would not be exposed to harmful content?
Next, would the Ministry elaborate on the definition of harmful content within the Singapore context and legal perspective? In dealing with OCSs with global reach, there may be some differences between desirable and undesirable, Eastern and Western values. Even what most of us agree on protecting children from, such as violence, cyberbullying and sexual content, have grey areas, especially for teenagers. I hope the Ministry can share its perspective on this.
Finally, a point about companies' management, culture and environment, as we hear about in the recent developments at Twitter. Twitter staff's ability to prevent misinformation and hate messages has been greatly reduced. In such situations, how would the Ministry ensure that we are able to enforce the controls on such platforms? With that, I support the Bill.
Deputy Leader.