I don't doubt it. In my case, I specifically asked for a lawyer repeatedly during my first two interviews with IO 1, and about a month later with IO 2, who wanted me to sign another statement he wrote up. I was flat out dismissed in the first two interviews, but I managed to leave the second interview without signing anything, but it was a very tense and intimidating experience and the IO tried many times to argue that I did not have the right to an attorney in Singapore and that by not signing then and there I was incriminating myself in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately, after leaving I tried to secure the services of an attorney and was unable to afford any of their fees, and so ended up signing the statement without any legal review anyways. Singapore will not provide you with an Attorney. The CLAS is a fantastic group of Pro Bono attorneys that volunteer their time to provide legal defense, but they are very limited, and one can only apply for representation with them after you've been formally charged in court. The SPF might question you several times over months, while holding you on bail, before the AGC brings formal charges against you in Court, and so you'll be without legal aid for all of that.

From the Singapore Academy of Law:

Police officers in Singapore have the power under s 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 18 to compel anyone “who appears to be acquainted with any of the facts and circumstances of [a case under investigation] to appear before” them. This includes a person who is suspected of having committed the offence. The police are further empowered to question and take statements from the person. Section 22(2) provides that the person “shall be bound to state truly what he knows of the facts and circumstances of the case”. But this
is qualified immediately by the proviso: “except that he need not say anything that might expose him to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture”. 19 While a suspect who is being questioned has a right to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination that is contained in this proviso, this right is weak in two respects. First, he risks incurring an evidential disadvantage at the trial if he exercises this right. Secondly, the police do not have to inform him that he has this right. Each will be elaborated in turn.