CO537-2188 — Page 282

す

3. Since then further consideration has been given to

the details of Sir Mark Young's proposals, as set out in

his despatch No.145 of the 22nd October, 1946, and I am

now in a position to accept those recommendations in full,

subject to the comments set out below (the references are

to the paragraphs of Sir Mark Young's despatch No.145):-

1.1 -

Counci

A

J

Subst helt

•

Alternative version I hang }(x), See for Aparthon's letter

-and winter I 11/ (a) Distribution of seats on the Municipal Council.

(paragraph 15).

I accept for the present the recommendation that the number of seats on the Council should be divided equally between the Chinese and non-Chinese communities. This arrangement will, of course, be subject to review from time to time in the light of experience.

despatch No.145 Sir Mark Young recommended that the

minimum qualifying age limit for election as a Councillor

should be 30, and, in paragraph 24(1) of his despatch,

that the minimum qualifying age limit for voters should

be 25. Subsequently he felt able to recommend that the

minimum qualifying age for Councillors should be reduced

to 25, and advised that the weight of local opinion would

not at present favour any further reduction in the minimum

qualifying age limit for both Councillors and voters. In

the light of this advice I am prepared to accept the age

of 25 as the minimum qualifying age for both, but I trust

that a reduction in both cases to 21 will not be long

delayed.

(c) Other electoral qualifications (paragraph 24). I agree to the proposed literacy and residential

qualifications. As regards the proposal that voters

should, in addition, possess a property or the Jury

Service qualification, I accept the view that these

additional qualifications are desirable at this stage,

except that I feel that persons who can satisfy the

Registration Officer that they are excluded from the

/Jury