Did the British colonial government practice good governance?
When a government practices good governance, it means that the policies implemented brought about more benefits than setbacks to the community and were carried out efficiently and effectively. However, the British government did not practice good governance as they were slow and ineffective and many of the policies that they implemented were only beneficial to themselves and not to the people. Also, they were not supportive of the people’s ideas although their ideas usually benefited the society which shows that they were not truly concerned for the welfare of the people.
Firstly, the British government in Singapore was inefficient in executing its policies and setting up laws. This can be clearly seen from the state of law and order in Singapore in the 1800s. Originally, the police force was small and largely ineffective, resulting in its inability to fight against rampant crime happening in Singapore. The policies suggested to improve the police force were slow to take effect. For example, the first police commissioner was only appointed in 1857, 38 years after Singapore came under British rule. During this period of time, the police force lacked a capable leader that could bring significant improvement to it. Therefore, the policemen were often unskilled and not trained to handle crimes happening in Singapore. Adding on, the Penal Code act as a general guideline for the criminal law in Singapore, consisting of the descriptions of criminal offences and their penalties. Therefore, the penal code is instrumental in fighting against crime in Singapore. However, it was only implemented in 1871, 52 years after the founding of Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles which meant that here was not a proper way to punish these criminals before the enactment of the Penal Code. Thus, it can be clearly seen from the state of law and order in Singapore that the British did not practice good governance as the policies implemented were mostly slow to take effect.
