Hong Kong is in the midst of a passionate debate about our constitutional development. It's a debate we must have. But it's a debate that must be tempered with reason. Raw emotion -- for or against the proposed political reform -- will get us nowhere.

It must also be a discussion based on the constitutional framework that provides for a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) within China.

Much discussion has centered around the recent decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of China on the parameters for electing the chief executive (CE) by one-person, one-vote in 2017.

Critics say the nominating framework is too restrictive and that only candidates favored by Beijing will eventually appear on the ballot.

Such claims are unfounded as we have not even started to discuss the detailed but crucial aspects of the nominating process for potential chief executive candidates.

This will be the subject of a public consultation to be launched soon and which will eventually lead to the enabling legislation on changes to the electoral method for the 2017 election.

On the question of electing the chief executive, the Basic Law, Hong Kong's "mini-constitution," provides that "the ultimate aim is the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures."

To change over to this new election method, the Basic Law requires the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all (currently 70) members of the Legislative Council, the consent of the CE, and be reported to the NPCSC of China for approval.

Basically, we have two choices: retain the current system by which the CE is elected by a 1,200-person election committee; or, adopt an enhanced system, the one recently announced by the NPCSC, that will see two to three candidates in a full-fledged election at which Hong Kong's five million eligible voters will exercise this right for the first time.

(CNN)