Foreign labour brings more good than bad

The opposition clearly is cherry-picking examples, using the examples of taxes from Malaysia. However, if one was to look in countries such as Australia or America where minimum wage systems exist, that is not the case as the government is able to regulate the taxes. My point of contention is on the idea of human trafficking. We concede that human trafficking does exist, and that there is the propensity of it. However, the opposition stated, and I quote, "If we were to abolish foreign labouring, human trafficking parties will even cease to exist." Let's go a bit off track. If you ban organ sales, there will be a black market that thrives even more due to the increased demand. By legalising foreign labour, in fact, the government would be clamping down on the black market. Technically legal foreign labour is good. Also, since the opposition never defined the definition of "foreign labour", the proposition would like to define it as legal work done by migrants who went to a country for a new job legally, and voluntarily. But back on track, the opposition is pinning the blame on foreign labours for them undergoing human trafficking when he ought to be blaming the traffickers. Not only that, human trafficking is not primarily due to foreign labour. So on to my case on the economic and social benefits of having foreign labour. Let's use the example of Singapore, where human resources are their main resource, and they do the brunt of the work to ensure the economy remains stable and growing. Singapore is a country which is suffering from a replacement rate below that of what is necessary and has relaxed migration laws in order to allow more foreign workers to work there. Singapore uses them to attract big companies to come and set up base in Singapore, as this is how their economy thrives. Findings from surveys done in Singapore show that foreign labour has contributed significantly to Singapore's GDP. To countries such as Singapore, foreign labour is an important factor in sustaining high economic growth when they do not have as much human resources to support it's economy or elderly population. Other similar countries facing such problems are the US, UK, China, etc. For some of the countries mentioned, they are facing a brain drain, but still have a huge ageing population to support, which is why they require foreign labour to step in and help them with their economic growth. The opposition has to remember that foreign labour does not just pertain to blue-collared workers, but it can also refer to talented individuals who can help contribute to that society in terms of their economic development. That wraps up my case on economic benefits. Onto social benefits. Countries with more foreign labour are like a huge pot of soup, with a lot of ingredients. This mix of cultures is delicious and it ensures a unique and vibrant culture for the country. The proposition believes that with the integration of more foreign workers, they are able to also contribute to the culture of the country, by introducing their own culture. For example, in San Francisco, you see Chinatown. There, you can find many elements reflecting the Chinese culture, many Chinese restaurants, etc. The reason why San Francisco is so appealing and attractive to tourists is not just because of their interesting attractions such as Alcatraz or the steep slopes. It's also because it is a cosmopolitan city that embraces the variety of cultures and makes it their own at the same time. In that sense, foreign labour has also contributed to economic growth by helping the tourism industry. With the above points on the benefits of foreign labour, I have proved to you why foreign labour is in fact a good, and hence, I am proud to propose.