Prof Terry Nardin, Head of the Department of Political Science at NUS published an article, a while back, in the Review of International Studies [Vol.34 No.3, 2008 (subscription or institutional access required)] that argues, particularly against political realism and postmodernism, that law is not merely an instrument of policy. He goes on to argue that the 'rule of law is a moral idea, if we understand the word "moral" as implying limits on the means by which governments as well as persons pursue their goals.' [p.385]
Nardin does not defend or attack any real-life legal system. His piece is pitched at the abstract theoretical level of legal theory and his focus is on international law, i.e. legal relations between states rather than within them. Nonetheless, a mention of Singapore still manages to pop up. After arguing against a thin, or minimalist, definition of the rule of law, he then tackles what he deems to be overly inclusive definitions:
To say, for example, that in some countries the rule of law is 'appreciated in instrumental terms' and 'dictated by efficiency and stability imperatives' is to use the expression 'rule of law' where it does not belong and where 'law' would suffice. [p.397]
The quotes he takes issue with come from Dr Thio Li-Ann's chapter, 'Rule of Law within a Non-Liberal "Communitarian" Democracy: The Singapore Experience' in Asian Discourses of Rule of Law: Theories and Implementation of Rule of Law in Twelve Asian Countries, France and the US, ed. by Randall Peerenboom (London: Routledge, 2004).
From the piece, I got a very strong sense that the author is also normatively committed to defining the rule of law as a moral idea.The author carefully built up his argument based on clear definitions of key terms like law and the rule of law and how, even though they are often conflated, we should not confuse them with policy and the exercise of power. Nonetheless, I cannot help but doubt whether the power of a moral idea and reasoned argument, on their own, can really speak truth to the powerful who have a vested interest in defining the terms of debate in some other way.
