8
electors but after hearing many views on this point I
3 have come to the conclusion that for Councillors the
period should be lengthened and that residence for not
less than ten years out of the fifteen years preceding
nomination is a proper requirement. The inclusion of
a proviso relating to the reckoning of the period of the
Japanese occupation is suggested in paragraph 25 below.
(a) On the other hand, in the case of British subjects,
whether of British or of Chinese race, no longer
residential qualification is considered to be necessary.
than that required for electors who are British subjects,
that is to say a total period of residence of not less
than one year since attaining the age of twenty three
years (see paragraph 24(vi) below.
(e) It is in my opinion desirable that the non-British
European and American communities should be allowed to
be represented on the Council. In their case as in the
case of British subjects a long residential qualification
would exclude valuable representatives and I consider
that the length of residence required might be the same
as for British subjects.
{
(f) I have reconsidered the question of requiring that
candidates for election as Councillors should have had their
place of residence or of business for a stated period in
the electoral division for which they stand. This is
thought to be undesirable since there may be divisions in
which no suitable candidate is likely to be found. I
agree that the requirement is unnecessary.
It is,
however, desirable that a candidate who stands for
election to represent a division on the Island should at
the time of nomination reside or have his place of
business on the Island and that a candidate for election
by a division on the mainland should have a like connectic
with the mainland.