106. The representative of Singapore, agreeing with most of the points made by Hungary, added that, when the TRIPS Agreement was being drafted, there had obviously been problems regarding the application of dispute settlement. The dispute settlement mechanism that was being considered was basically the one that had applied in the area of goods, tariffs and other GATT subjects and there had been uncertainty as to how this mechanism could apply in the area of intellectual property where private rights were being given. It was easier to withdraw concessions than to take back a private right. Similarly, when the issue of non-violation was being discussed, there had been a lot of soul-searching as to whether this was a mode of dispute settlement applicable in the TRIPS area, and, in their wisdom, the negotiators had agreed that this issue should be deferred. In the interim period, no conclusive arguments had been heard that this situation had changed and there was no critical reason why the situation under Article 64.3 should change. In fact, the moratorium should be extended as, unlike in the area of concessions and goods, the non-violation remedy would not sit well in the area of TRIPS. Therefore, the Council should act with caution and meanwhile the moratorium should continue.
