This is an interesting piece which – for me – raises more questions than it answers. Is Ming suggesting that the newcomers from China are migrants or colonists? Are they escaping the crowd or forging a new way of life? Or have they the perception that growing Chinese economic and military power and hegemony is illusory?

I welcome migrants from any source who want to be part of Australia. And I especially welcome those who bring intelligence, skills and diligence – as well as commitment to Australia.

"Or have they the perception that growing Chinese economic and military power and hegemony is illusory?"

That is probably the nub of it but unfortunately, their choice of Australia as a safe haven may also be illusiory. This is so because our economy is too dependant on the rise of the Chinese economy and when it inevitably collapses, so will ours.

David

The author writes an interesting piece but I think the definition of "soft power" relied on, is too narrow.

Soft power, taken more broadly, can also include aid money, investment and immigration of Chinese executives overseas, for the benefit of multinational Chinesee businesses - be extension benefitting China.

For a massive country like China it is simply not contradictory that it can have an attractive culture AND that a significant number of Chinese wish to move overseas to Australia.

Even when the narrow Nye definition is applied to the US the author should notice that the number of Americans remaining in the US due to its internationally attractive culture DOES NOT prevent a large number of Americans choosing to live overseas.

Hence the US and the Chinese example can be seen as disproving the concept of soft power contradiction.

Pete
(see soft power concept here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7724 )

I opted for the narrower definition because I felt that a more inclusive form would undermine its explanatory powers. Economic power, I feel, is too fungible.
Granted Americans are also leaving the United States, I still feel that the general argument holds true. More people prefer to migrate to the United States than to China. At the same time, Americans are also not leaving the United States in droves, which the Chinese are doing.

Australians leaving Australia, Americans leaving America and now Chinese leaving China. I do not think 'soft power' is the best explaination for the fluid migration trends we see in an increasingly global community.

What's the driver? Global job opportunities provide adventurous job seekers with an entry pass into a desirable and exciting new life. We have global organisations and corporations to thank for that.

An international educational learning experience in a foreign university or college provides opportunities for students to experience another culture whilst gaining the qualfications that can secure a job back home or right here. We earn $15 Billion annually from this niche in a global education sector which seeks the brightest minds from beyond national borders.

Then there are the woofers (organic farm workers), and migrant workers, NGO workers ...
it's an evolving trend with mass movemement of people everywhere.

I came across this article that may be of interest and supports my argument that perhaps China's claim to soft power is akin to Ozymandias' creation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/world/asia/12china.html?ref=global-home