CO537-1651 — Page 116

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.