Paradoxical Modernism in Singapore’s Mosque Architecture: Secularism, Indo-Saracenic Elements, and Mosque Upgrading in the Inaugural Mosque Building Fund Phase (1977-1983)

Abstract

This paper examines the paradoxes of applying modernist architectural principles, rooted in secular, functional ideals, to mosque design during the initial phase of Singapore’s Mosque Building Fund (MBF) from 1977 to 1983. Drawing on archival plans, photographs, and newspaper articles, it explores how national objectives shaped mosque construction, resulting in what this paper terms “paradoxical” Modernism: architectural outcomes that adapt modernist ideals to meet the Malay/Muslim community’s spiritual, symbolic, and communal needs. Rather than signalling deficiency, the term highlights the negotiated tensions between state planning and religious expression in a postcolonial context. It examines the collaboration among the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), architects from the Housing Development Board (HDB), and the Mosque Building Committee (Jawatankuasa Pembinaan Masjid, JPM), focusing on how these partnerships balanced planning objectives with community feedback. The resulting mosque designs attempted to reconcile modernist forms with Malay/Muslim perceptions of appropriate mosque aesthetics and functions. The study analyses how modernist idioms, the International Style and Brutalism, were used to reinterpret Indo-Saracenic elements such as domes, minarets, and arches into simplified, geometric forms across seven MBF mosques: Muhajirin (1977), Mujahidin (1977), Assyakirin (1978), An-Nur (1980), Al-Ansar (1981), Al-Muttaqin (1980), and En-Naeem (1983). The analysis is structured around three key areas: first, a discussion of mosque designs influenced by modernist idioms; second, how Indo-Saracenic forms were adapted to fit these idioms; and third, the integration of elements such as open courtyards and balconies. Finally, the paper addresses how redevelopment pressures have led to modifications or demolition of these buildings. These changes reveal the “paradoxes” not as flaws, but as signs of how architecture responded to evolving community needs and planning priorities. Instead, these mosques should be recognised as culturally significant reflections of their time’s socio-political conditions, raising broader questions about conserving modernist religious architecture in Singapore