Understanding the Anti Colonial History of Asian Countries

A little comment while reading Andrew Heywood's Politics (4th edition).

Quote : 'For African and Asian nations, the quest for political independence was inextricably linked to a desire  for social development and for an end to their subordination to the industrialized states of Europe and the USA. The goal of national liberation therefore had an economic as well as a political dimension. This helps to explain why anti colonial movements typically looked not to liberalism but to socialism.' ( Chapter 5, Nations and Nationalism, subtitle 'Anticolonial and postcolonial nationalism', page 122)

Comment : The argument is flaw. For Malaysia and Singapore, as well as greater part of Southeast Asia, the anti colonial movements looked for socialism or marxism because the communists from Russia and China, although disseminate their ideology during the political campaign in Southeast Asia, were championing national liberation together with the people. There was no liberal movement because the liberals in Europe especially the colonial master country did not help in that cause. British had been colonized Malaya from 1874 till 1957, whether conservative party or labour party in power, the political elites in UK only uphold democracy and human rights in UK, they have no shame to continue colony policies to the benefit of their own country. In the history of Malaya and Singapore, i have never heard any British liberals come to Malaya to propagate liberation of the people, such as communist. 'Free world' is only for British citizens but not those enslaved by them.

Instead, what the British government (elected by British citizens) did was destroying all potential anti colonial movements in Malaya, clamping down the independent movement, especially the communist party and Malay socialist parties. The British also encouraged feudal and right wing group to form political parties and hand over the political power to them after allow the independence of Malaysia.

Thus, the argument of the author that 'Political independence links to social development....anti colonial movement typically looked not to liberalism but to socialism' is utmost wrong. The author should examine the topic from a people's perspective rather than colonial master's unconvincing viewpoint, he should understand better the anti colonial history of Asian countries.