Define "better."

The Dutch were far more involved in the Dutch East Indies than the British ever were in Malaya or British Borneo or even India. For example there's no British equivalent of the horrific Cultivation System in Malaya, but neither was there an Ethical Policy.

The British would have done in Indonesia what they did in the rest of Asia: excepting fierce local resistance, install themselves above local leaders, enforce British commerce law and establish a penal code, run a central police force, build infrastructure and "forget about it."

The British just did whatever they thought would bring benefits to commerce and industry (and specifically the efficient transfer of plant resources to other parts of the Empire, and the import of British goods.)

One thing you would not see is a unified Indies as a polity, at least in the 19th and early 20th century (British attempts to federalise Malaya were slow in coming). Local leaders could run their fiefdoms as they pleased as long as the Resident had the real power, and certain cities - possibly Surabaya, would have been run as crown colonies, or as a separate, direct administration, because of their capacity as naval bases.

You can see the culmination of British colonial policy in the Anglo-Dutch Treaties. The British wanted to control the flow of goods, not consolidate their culture in other countries: here's an example. The Dutch established their Dutch-language HBS (Hogere Burgerschool) in Jakarta in 1864. The Malay-peninsula equivalent is the Victoria Institution in KL - est 1893. However this school was set up by private individuals and NOT the British state - whereas the Dutch education system into which natives were being slowly filtered was a state-supported programme. The Raffles Institution was much earlier in 1823 but was again a private endeavour by Raffles himself and not an attempt to spread British civic values and the English language to the wider local aristocracy.

"Better coloniser", though, is wholly subjective.