ECRL - Impose GST but arbitrage the cost difference
LETTER | I refer to the Malaysiakini report ECRL - Gov't confirms GST relief for Chinese firm.
I am a simple-minded retired Malaysian who reads the newspaper everyday to keep me updated on what is happening around the world.
Since Parliament was dissolved recently, my focus is on local news to help me decide which party to vote for in the coming general election (GE14).
My concentration as with other Malaysians is news on cost of living, the goods and services tax (GST), crime prevention and corruption to name a few.
I was shocked after reading the above article in which when the customs director-general confirmed that the China Communications Construction Sdn Bhd will be given GST relief for the acquisition of goods and services for the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project.
This because it is a method to reduce the cost of implementation. He also said that the interest rate of the loan given for the project was "better" than the cost of GST.
The confirmation came as a result of a so-called “senseless” statements about the GST and government projects from an opposition member.
For the record, for the last three years I have been made to believe that the GST system was proven to reduce the price of goods and that came from a minister who even guaranteed it.
The RM55 billion ECRL project, owned and operated by a subsidiary of the finance ministry, secured a soft loan from the Export-Import Bank of China.
A strategist said it does not make any sense for the government to pay GST to itself. Indirectly he confirmed GST will increase cost by saying:
"With GST, (it) will raise the total amount of loans and hence the interest. It is better to grant the company an exemption, which is provided by the law to reduce unnecessary processes and expenses”.
Poor me, retired and unemployed, I have to pay GST for almost everything including withdrawals from my Tabung Haji account to be transferred to my current account.
A simple-minded me would have thought that it would be better to impose GST since we had a good and attractive deal on the soft loan.
Since the interest rate of the loan was "better" than the cost of GST, we could arbitrage the cost difference.
The government could exploit the difference and in the process pocket a risk-free return. The three over billion ringgit GST portion could be used for more attractive projects for the rakyat.
This opportunity does not come very often especially when we have a seven-year relief from servicing of the loan.
And as the prime minister said, by then the ringgit would have appreciated and the interest would be almost negligible.
I stand to be corrected.
What say you…
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
Many in Malaysia do not seem to understand how our GST system works. 1. From CCCC's viewpoint, it makes no difference whether GST is exempted or not. 2. If CCCC is NOT exempted, it will bill ECRL 6% gst on $55b=$3.3b. ECRL will pay it to CCCC which will then pay it back to Customs & Excise. So, CCCC's net gst cost is zero. Like all businesses, it is only an unpaid gst collecting agent for govt. 3. From the govt viewpoint, it will pay out $3.3b via ECRL. In turn it will collect back $3.3b from CCCC via C&E. So, net income to govt is zero. This will happen only because, in this instance, the govt will also be the "final consumer". 4. So, if not exempted, CCCC income will be $55b and ECRL/govt cost $55b.5. If CCCC is exempted from charging gst, it will bill ECRL $55b and collect $55b. As in (4) above, CCCC income remains $55b and ECRL/govt cost $55b.6. So, if it it makes no difference to either party whether gst is charged or not, why bother? 7. Simple. Firstly, it will save a lot of paperwork. Also, without exemption, govt will have to borrow $3.3b to pay gst to CCCC. This will be a short-term loan as govt will receive the $3.3b back from CCCC. However, there will be a timing difference, as CCCC will only be required to pay the gst to C&E 1 month after its gst quarter ends. The cost of govt borrowing $3.3b at say 4% per year for 90 days, will be $33 million. Is that not a good enough reason for exemption? 8. Similarly, it makes no differences whether local suppliers/contractors to govt projects are exempted or not from gst. The suppliers, provided they are registered for gst, can claim back their gst on expenses (Input Tax) by deducting it from the gst on their sales billings to the govt (Output Tax) and remitting net to C&E. 9. In the final analysis, the govt should standardize the gst system and exempt all suppliers/contractors from being charged/charging gst for govt contracts for a ‘Win, Win’ compromise.
A most well thought out observation.


Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.