I recently asked artificial intelligence (AI) to give me its views on a recurring feature of Sabah politics: announcements by groups of political party members, usually at branch or divisional level, declaring their departure from a particular party.
The question was straightforward. How does the departure of a relatively small group of party members affect the overall political strength and standing of an organisation?
Can such announcements genuinely be considered an indication of growing dissatisfaction within a party, or are they sometimes publicity exercises intended to create an impression that a political organisation is losing its grassroots support?
AI offered several arguments, including the importance of distinguishing between organisational changes and actual electoral strength.
But before accepting its analysis, there is another question worth asking: how credible is AI when it comes to understanding Sabah politics?
AI can analyse political structures, compare developments and identify patterns in political behaviour. It can explain why defections matter, how political organisations operate and how public perception can influence political fortunes.
However, it does not experience Sabah politics.
It does not understand local political loyalties through personal relationships, community networks, family connections or the complicated arrangements that sometimes exist between political personalities.
It also does not have access to the actual membership records of political parties in Sabah.
In that sense, AI can offer an analytical perspective, but its understanding has limitations. It can help frame the questions, but the answers still require local knowledge, evidence and journalistic scrutiny.
And this brings me to something that has increasingly caught my attention in Sabah’s political reporting.
Why do announcements by a handful of branch or divisional level party members leaving an organisation sometimes receive so much attention?
More importantly, what do these announcements actually tell us about the political strength of the affected party?
The problem with measuring party membership
Political party membership in Sabah is not particularly transparent.
There is no publicly accessible database through which journalists can independently establish the actual membership strength of political organisations, verify individual membership claims or determine how many active members a particular division has.
It is also an open secret that political affiliations in Sabah can be complicated. Some individuals may maintain relationships or memberships with more than one political organisation, sometimes without the public knowing their actual political affiliations.
This makes it difficult to determine the significance of announcements involving people who claim to be leaving a particular party.
A group of 30 people announcing their departure may sound impressive in a press statement. But 30 out of how many?
If the division has thousands of registered members, the departure may have little organisational consequence.
If those 30 individuals happen to include influential local leaders who command substantial grassroots support, the implications could be different.
The problem is that such details are rarely established before these announcements are presented as evidence of a party’s declining influence.
There are five reasons why such developments deserve greater scrutiny.
The numbers do not necessarily reflect political strength
A photograph showing 20 or 30 people announcing their departure does not establish that a party has suffered a significant membership loss.
Without knowing the actual membership strength of the affected branch or division, the numbers have little context.
Are they ordinary members? Office bearers? Former members? Or individuals who have little influence over the party’s grassroots machinery?
The public deserves more than a photograph and a declaration.
Party positions do not automatically translate into grassroots influence
Being a branch chairman, divisional committee member or local coordinator does not necessarily mean someone commands substantial political support.
A person may hold a position within a political organisation without having the ability to influence hundreds, let alone thousands, of voters.
There is a difference between losing party officials and losing political support.
A political party may lose several office bearers but retain its grassroots machinery and voter confidence.
Conversely, a party may have an impressive organisational structure on paper but struggle to convince voters during an election.
Membership claims are difficult to verify
This is particularly relevant in Sabah.
When membership records are not publicly available, how can journalists establish whether those announcing their departure are genuine, active members?
How do we know whether their memberships are current? How many of them were actually involved in party activities? And how significant were they within the organisation?
These are legitimate questions.
A declaration of departure is not necessarily proof of a significant political movement.
Without independent verification, the announcement should be treated as a claim rather than an established indication of a party’s declining strength.
Such announcements can become political publicity exercises
There is nothing wrong with individuals leaving a political party. They have every right to disagree with their leadership and seek another political platform.
However, the way such departures are presented can serve a different political purpose.
A relatively small group can be portrayed as representing widespread dissatisfaction within an organisation.
The announcement may create an impression that a party is experiencing internal turmoil, losing its grassroots support or facing a leadership crisis.
This is where political publicity and genuine political developments can become difficult to distinguish.
It is not unreasonable to question whether some of these announcements are intended to discredit a particular political group rather than simply inform the public about individuals exercising their right to leave.
That does not mean every departure is manufactured or insignificant. Genuine defections happen, and some can have serious political consequences.
But the media should establish the substance behind the announcement before amplifying the political message.
Electoral strength is ultimately tested at the ballot box
Political parties do not win elections simply because they have more branch chairmen or divisional committee members.
They win because voters support their candidates and political platforms.
In Sabah, where electoral competition is often shaped by local personalities, community relationships and changing political alliances, the ability to mobilise voters matters considerably more than the number of people appearing at a press conference.
A party losing several branch officials does not automatically mean it has lost its electoral appeal.
If the departures involve elected representatives, senior leaders, influential community figures or a substantial portion of an established division, the political implications deserve serious attention.
But the departure of a small group of ordinary members should not automatically be elevated into a major political crisis.
The media must distinguish between news and political messaging
This is where I believe the editorial question becomes important.
Should every announcement involving a group of party members leaving an organisation automatically qualify as news?
My answer is no, not necessarily.
The issue is not whether the announcement deserves to be reported. It is whether the development has sufficient political significance to warrant the prominence given to it.
There is a difference between reporting that 30 people have left a political party and suggesting that the party is losing its grassroots support.
The first is a factual announcement, subject to verification. The second is a political conclusion that requires evidence.
Journalists should be asking questions about the numbers, the positions held by those involved, their actual influence and whether their departure has any measurable effect on the party’s organisational strength.
Otherwise, the media risks becoming a platform for political messaging designed to influence public perception.
Sabah politics already has enough speculation, political manoeuvring and attempts to portray opponents as being in decline.
We should be careful not to confuse political publicity with political reality.
After all, a party losing 30 members is one thing. A party losing 30,000 supporters is an entirely different matter.
The two should never be confused.
