With the mainstream media mostly giving the National Reform Committee a blank cheque in terms of soft PR and uncritical reporting of its activities, it has been alternative media outlets like prachatai.com that have voiced criticism.

Two members of the reform committee - noted historian Nidhi Eoseewong and scholar-monk Venerable Phra Paisarn Visalo - recently came under fire on the news website.

The pair were criticised for having joined the committee - led by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's appointee, former premier Anand Panyarachun - in the aftermath of the April-May bloodshed, in which 91 people were killed.

Historian Somsak Jiamteerasakul of Thammasat University attacked Nidhi for lacking any sense of "decency" in joining the committee.

There was similar criticism also of venerable Paisarn, but in a softer tone, since he is a monk. The monk defended himself on prachatai.com saying he would pull out of the committee if the government was found to be largely responsible for the deaths. That did not appear good enough for some critics, however.

The debate on the merits of the two joining the committee might well require negotiating the grey area of politics and morality.

This grey area is difficult precisely because the line demarcating what is right or wrong is not always clear-cut.

While Nidhi was criticised for being part of the current government's initiative, he has been vocal against the established elite for not recognising the fast changing landscape of Thai politics and society. Also, Nidhi is definitely no friend of Thaksin Shinawatra.

So is Nidhi a red shirt, yellow shirt, or whatever shirt?

The answer is murky and grey at best.

Lurking beneath that murky demarcation line is a passion for being for or against the old established elite, as well as against people like Thaksin. It's easier to say "I either like or hate Thaksin". Often times, even if you do not say it, someone else will don a coloured shirt on you, be it red or yellow or whatever.

At the same time, the criteria used in judging people in the grey area is more complex than for those regarded as either with or against us - that is, either white or black.

One might want to ask whether or not Nidhi and the venerable Paisarn are sincere and honest in their intentions in being part of the committee. Do they seek good for society? Or merely want to massage their own egos while earning some extra cash from taxpayers by joining the committee?

This is not to suggest that simply because the two may have good intentions, others who disagree with them and the committee should drop their opposition. It would do Thai society some good, however, if we could learn to better negotiate the grey area of politics and morality - so people who oppose developments could at least try harder to understand others' intentions and not just treat them as enemies.

Let there be more recognition with the grey area. Grey has in it both the shadings of black and white. People who think absolutely in these colours may feel disturbed by people like Nidhi - but they should recognise that the shade of grey does exist (and may be applicable to the two). And people in this grey area beg to be treated with more empathy and not made one's foe or friend.

You can oppose Nidhi or venerable Phra Paisarn, if you like, but don't readily make them an enemy, simply because they think differently. The same goes for the old established elite - do not think all red shirt-sympathisers are necessarily red or pro-Thaksin.