Myra Embun @ Dengkil — Jenderam Hilir, Daerah Sepang, Selangor
594 serviced-apartment units in two towers, filed as two registered phases of 297 units each — 19355-6 and 19355-7 — on one 5.08-acre freehold parcel, both sold on Schedule H. Licensed developer OIB PROPERTIES (PRV) SDN. BHD. (1085936-T), licence 19355/04-2031/0082 (R). And the single most remarkable thing about it is that almost nobody has documented it. It is absent from its own developer’s project list, the website printed in its own government filing redirect-loops, and no property portal carries a project record at all.
XXXXNOT Rumah Selangorku — the filed RM706,310 ceiling refutes itAll 594 units are Schedule H, 2–4 bedrooms — no SOHO, no office suite594 units · 2 phases · 25 storeys · freeholdI reply with the two filed KPKT advertisement brochures and both government register records — not a brochure summary, because on this project there is barely any marketing material to summarise.
19355-6 and 19355-7 — the source of the real permit numbers, the storey count, the price band and both 12-month extensions19355-6 through 19355-8 read one by one, because one licence serial carries three different schemesMyra Embun @ Dengkil at a glance
Twenty facts, each with the document that prints it. Where nothing was printed — the mukim and lot, the land-use category, phase 1’s delivery date, any distance but one — the row says so rather than filling the gap. On this project the blanks are most of the story.
- Registered scheme name
- MYRA EMBUN
nama: Myra Embunon KPKT register records19355-6and19355-7, and Nama Projek: Myra Embun printed in the phase‑2 filed brochure. Positive finding: there is no separate “Residensi” name and no bracketed Malay alias — unlike19355-8on this very licence, which is registered as Pangsapuri Saujana Idaman. “Phase 1” and “Phase 2” are not registered names: the register holds one scheme name across both, distinguished only by phase index and permit number. One outlet calls it “Myra Embun Residences” — no filing and no other outlet does. - Licensed developer
- OIB PROPERTIES (PRV) SDN. BHD. (1085936-T)Printed in both filed brochures and carried as pemaju on both register records. KPKT developer code 19355, status Aktif,
kesalahan: null(no recorded offence), 8 registered projects — which matches a phase-by-phase walk exactly. Not one of the seven press pieces on the launch names this company. They all attribute the project to “Myra” or to “Oriental Interest Bhd”. Your Schedule H counterparty is the name in this row. - Brand ownership — corrected
- Oriental Interest Berhad, not Gamuda LandThis page was commissioned on the premise that Myra is a Gamuda Land brand. It is not. “The Myra brand is a product of OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd (200901008425 / 851411-M)” — the developer’s own words, in the footer of
myra.com.my. The listed parent is Oriental Interest Berhad (199301017406 / 272144-M), Bursa Malaysia ticker OIB. “Gamuda” appears in no filing, no register record and on no corporate page connected to this project, and KPKT’s six Gamuda-named developers are all on other licences. - Developer’s licence
- 19355/04-2031/0082 (R)One licence covers all eight phases. The two public sources disagree on the start date: both filed brochures print 10/04/2025, the register prints 10/04/2026. Both agree the expiry is 9 April 2031, and the expiry is what governs — so the licence is current, with about 4½ years to run as at 8 October 2026. The (R) suffix agrees in both places.
- Registered phases and units
- 594 — two phases of 297Filed Jumlah Unit: 297 unit on
19355-6and 297 on19355-7; register bilangan unit: 297 on both. 594 in total, which is what The Edge, NST, Utusan, StarProperty and one of the two EdgeProp pieces all report. The other EdgeProp piece reports 297 as the project total and never mentions a second phase. - Built form, as filed
- Pangsapuri Servis — serviced apartmentJenis Bangunan: Pangsapuri Servis 25 Tingkat (phase 1, types A–E) and Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan (phase 2) — two different filed strings for the same thing, which the register normalises to Pangsapuri Servis on both. No filed document anywhere calls this a condominium, and the press uniformly says “serviced residences”.
- Sale contract
- Schedule H on both phasespjb.jenis: Jadual H on
19355-6and19355-7. So all 594 units are HDA-licensed strata title housing accommodation, with statutory delivery periods, statutory liquidated damages and Housing Development Account protection. And every one of the five filed unit types is a 2-, 3- or 4-bedroom residential layout — there is no SOHO, no SOFO, no studio-office and no studio in either filed schedule. On this series that is unusual and it is a genuine positive. - Storeys
- 25 — the register’s figure for both phasesFiled three different ways. Phase 1’s brochure: 25 Tingkat, twice. Phase 2’s brochure: 28. Register komponen.tingkat: 25 on both. Both brochures then describe the same stack — LG, G, UG, levels 1–25 and a level 26 rooftop — so 25 is very probably the residential count and 28 the structural plate count, but that reconciliation is mine and no filed document states it. This page publishes 25, the register’s figure, and prints the 28.
- Land area
- 5.08 acres — the WHOLE siteKeluasan Tanah: 5.08 ekar on phase 1’s brochure and 5.08 acres on phase 2’s. Because the identical figure is printed on both phases, it is the whole parcel and not a per-phase allocation. That matters: see the density row. 5.08 acres = 2.0558 ha, my conversion. Three press figures differ slightly — NST 2.06 ha, Utusan 2.05 ha, StarProperty “5 acres”.
- Density
- 116.9 units per acre594 ÷ 5.08 acres, my arithmetic from the filed unit counts and the filed parcel. And that denominator still carries the boutique hotel and the supermarket, which sit on the same 5.08 acres with no land allocation published — so 116.9 is the floor and the residential-only figure is higher. The trap, named: 297 ÷ 5.08 = 58.5/acre is the number a careless source would quote, and it is wrong, because both towers share the one parcel. No source makes a “low density” claim about this project, which is just as well.
- Tenure
- Freehold (Kekal)Pegangan Tanah: Kekal on both filed brochures — so there is no lease expiry to print. Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada (no restriction in interest). Bebanan / Gadaian Tanah: Tiada (no encumbrance) — which is why no chargee bank is named; there is none filed to name.
- Approving authority
- Majlis Perbandaran SepangPihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan on both brochures, with building-plan approvals MPSepang 600-34/3/690 (
19355-6) and MPSEPANG 600-34/3/689 (19355-7). MP Sepang’s jurisdiction is Daerah Sepang, and that is what settles the district — because both of this project’s own register records printdaerah: “-”, while the five Myra Saujana phases on the same licence all print Sepang. Note the inversion: the later-permitted phase carries the lower plan reference. - Registered coordinates
- 2.899347, 101.730414 (ph 1) · 2.899452, 101.730411 (ph 2)Filed on the register for each phase. The two points are about 12 m apart — my haversine arithmetic from the two filed coordinates — which is two adjacent tower footprints on one site, exactly as “two residential towers” implies.
- Mukim, seksyen, lot and PT number
- NOT PRINTEDAbsent from both filed brochures, from both register records and from every press piece. No Bursa land-acquisition or contractor announcement naming this site was found — OIB’s announcement trail returned Kedah, Klang and a 222-acre purchase, none at Jenderam. So the lot stays unrecovered and no mukim is guessed here.
- Filed APDL permits
- 19355-6/07-2029/0497(A)-(S) · 19355-7/07-2029/0513(A)-(S)Recovered from the government register, because both filed brochures print placeholders — phase 1 leaves the permit-number field blank and prints
xxxfor the validity; phase 2 printsXXXXfor both. Register validity: 5 Jul 2026 – 4 Jul 2029 and 11 Jul 2026 – 10 Jul 2029. Both current, about 2 years 9 months to run, and both carry the register’s (A) active suffix. - Filed expected completion
- April 2029 on both brochures — and it is not the governing dateTarikh Dijangka Siap: April 2029, printed identically on both filed brochures. The register records an approved 12-month extension on both phases, construction period amended from 36 to 48 months. See the next two rows.
- Governing delivery date, phase 2
- 29 July 2030Register: first SPA 29 July 2026, original vacant possession 29 July 2029, pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempoh tambahan diluluskan: 12 bulan, new period 48 bulan, serah kosong baharu 29 July 2030. This is not a delay. Phase 2 is filed Belum Mula at 0.00% complete and has no CCC to test against, so nothing is late. What the extension proves is that the contractual outer limit is 2030, not the April 2029 both brochures print.
- Governing delivery date, phase 1
- Genuinely indeterminateThe register holds no tarikh PJB pertama for
19355-6— no first SPA date is filed at all. The 12-month extension is approved and the period is 48 months, but the clock has no start, so neither the original nor the extended vacant possession date can be computed. This page therefore prints no phase-1 delivery date, and anyone who quotes you one should be asked where it came from. - Filed statutory price range
- Phase 1 RM250,000 – RM706,310 · Phase 2 RM250,000 – RM701,840Harga Jualan Unit minimum and maximum exactly as each filed brochure prints it, and the KPKT register’s own band is identical on both phases — no splice, no divergence, which is rarer than it should be. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
- Is this Rumah Selangorku?
- No — and the filings settle itThe filed maximum of RM706,310 is incompatible with every Selangor affordable tier. Neither brochure carries an affordable-scheme designation, an RSKU type letter, a quota row, a Diskaun Bumiputera row or any LPHS reference, and the only approving authority filed is MP Sepang. Watch the trap: the filed minimum of RM250,000 sits at the top of the familiar Rumah Selangorku ladder and the brand markets itself on affordability. The band’s own ceiling refutes the inference. A genuinely affordable-looking scheme does sit on this licence —
19355-8, Pangsapuri Saujana Idaman, 286 units at a flat RM290,000 — and it is a different scheme with a different name. - Awards and green certification
- None, and none claimedThe developer makes no award claim at all — not on
about-myra.html, not onoibgroup.com, not in either filed brochure, not in any of the seven press pieces. So there is nothing to borrow and nothing to refuse. On green: all four GreenRE rating tiers were read and none carries a Myra Embun entry; three of the four tables truncate, so this is a qualified negative. The Bronze row “Myra Idaman” is Myra Gardens Sdn Bhd at Rawang, 60 km away and provisional; “Residensi Seri Embun” (Gold) and “Casa Embun” (Silver) belong to entirely different companies.
Jump to what you came for
This page is organised the way a buyer actually asks — beginning with the reason the page had to be written at all.
A permitted, selling, 594-unit development that almost nobody has documented
Start here, because it is the reason this page exists. Everything below states what the government record says, what the marketing says, and who published which. Nothing is inference unless the card says so.
There is not one published image of this project, anywhere, and that is why this page has no gallery
No image of Myra Embun was found on any source, so this page carries none. The developer’s own brand site does not list the project at all; its project-render convention is /images/renderslider/<project>.jpg, and both myraembun.jpg and myraembun.png return 404 — against a negative control (a bogus filename, also 404, proving the host does not answer missing files with an HTML shell) and a positive control (myrasaujana.jpg, reachable). Every one of the ten projects the brand does list has a render in that folder. This one has none. The microsite printed in its own government filing, myraembun.my, 301-redirects into the brand site and then redirect-loops. No property portal carries a project record either. So rather than borrow a sibling’s render or a press photograph, this page shows nothing and says so. Louis can supply renders and floor plans once the developer releases them, and this page will be updated when he does.
Absent from its own developer’s website — while that developer’s filed brochure prints the project’s URL
myra.com.my and myra.com.my/myra-homes.html both publish the same ten-project list: Myra Cove, Myra Tenuman, Myra Senja, Myra Putri, Myra Gardens, Alea Residence, Ara Residence, Myra Dahlia, Myra Saujana, Putra Idaman. Myra Embun is not among them. Its location filter even offers “Dengkil” — which is there for Myra Saujana. oibgroup.com does not mention the project either, and myra.com.my/sitemap.xml is a 404. Meanwhile both filed government brochures print https://myraembun.my/ as the project’s website, a URL that redirects to a brand-site path the brand site does not link. A 594-unit scheme with two live permits, and its own developer publishes nothing about it.
One licence serial carries three completely different schemes — and this is the main trap on this project
Licence 19355/04-2031/0082 (R) belongs to OIB Properties (PRV) Sdn Bhd, not to a project. A phase-by-phase walk of 19355-6 through 19355-10 (the last two are 404s) finds eight live phases and three scheme names: -1 to -5 Myra Saujana — 2-storey terrace and semi-detached, Schedule G, 253 units, with three phases already CCC’d in 2020, 2022 and 2023; -6 and -7 Myra Embun, this project; and -8 Pangsapuri Saujana Idaman, 286 units at a flat filed RM290,000 — a fourth scheme no consumer source lists at all. Any claim built on “licence 19355” is a claim about the company and about nothing else.
Myra Embun is a neighbour of Myra Saujana, not the same parcel — and nothing may be carried across
From the filed coordinates, my own haversine arithmetic: Myra Embun sits 786 m from Myra Saujana 19355-1, 788 m from -4, 921 m from -2 and 1,041 m from -3 and -5. So roughly 0.8–1.0 km away — neighbouring, genuinely separate sites, and no filed document places either inside a named township. The two Embun phases, by contrast, are 12 m apart. What must never be carried across: Saujana is landed on Schedule G, Embun is high-rise on Schedule H; Saujana’s later phases are filed at RM2,209,920–RM3,377,160 against Embun’s RM250,000–RM706,310; three Saujana phases are finished, neither Embun phase has started delivery.
Both phases already carry an approved 12-month extension — while both brochures still print April 2029
The register records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya on both phases, tempoh tambahan diluluskan: 12 bulan, and the construction period amended from 36 to 48 months. Phase 2’s first SPA is filed 29 July 2026, so its original vacant possession was 29 July 2029 and its contractual vacant possession is now 29 July 2030. Both brochures still print Tarikh Dijangka Siap: April 2029. This is not a delay and this page will not call it one — phase 2 is filed Belum Mula at 0.00%, and neither phase has a CCC to test. What it proves is where the contractual outer limit actually sits.
Phase 1 has no first SPA date filed at all, so its delivery date cannot be computed
This is the sharper half of the delivery story and it is easy to miss. The register holds no tarikh PJB pertama for 19355-6: the field is -. The 12-month extension of time is approved and the amended period is 48 months, but a construction period with no start date yields no end date. Phase 1’s vacant possession is genuinely indeterminate on the public record, and no filed, registered or published source gives one. The only date in circulation for it is the brochures’ April 2029, which the approved extension has already overtaken.
Both filed brochures file the permit number as a placeholder — and the register recovers both
Phase 1 leaves No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan blank and prints xxx for Tempoh Sah Permit. Phase 2 prints XXXX for both. On the filed advertisements alone, the one compliance check a buyer would actually run — is the selling permit current? — cannot be performed. The register holds both real serials: 19355-6/07-2029/0497(A)-(S), valid 5 Jul 2026 to 4 Jul 2029, and 19355-7/07-2029/0513(A)-(S), valid 11 Jul 2026 to 10 Jul 2029. Both current, both with the (A) active suffix, and both issued in July 2026 — about a month after the June 2026 launch coverage.
5.08 acres is printed on BOTH phases, so it is the whole site — and halving it is the trap
Keluasan Tanah reads 5.08 ekar on phase 1 and 5.08 acres on phase 2. The identical figure on both filings means it describes the whole parcel, not each phase. So the honest density is 594 ÷ 5.08 = 116.9 units per acre — my arithmetic from filed figures — and it is a floor, not a ceiling, because the boutique hotel and the supermarket occupy part of the same 5.08 acres with no allocation published. Treat 297 ÷ 5.08 = 58.5/acre as the error to avoid. It is what you get by pairing one phase’s units with the whole site’s land, and it understates the project by half.
The filed and marketed layout schedules agree exactly on all five types — the cleanest match in this series
Worth saying out loud, because this series mostly exists to refute things. The only source publishing a per-type schedule is edgeprop.my/content/1916987, and every one of its figures matches the statutory schedule: A 700 sq ft 2/2 · B 1,050 sq ft 3/2 · C 1,050 sq ft 3/2 · D 1,300 sq ft 4/3 · E 1,490 sq ft 4/3. Built-ups, bedrooms and bathrooms all agree. There is no layout discrepancy to report on this project. The filing carries one thing the marketed schedule does not — the car-park allocation, 2 bays per unit and 2–3 for type E.
But types B and C are identical in every filed particular, and nothing explains why
Both are 1,050 sq ft, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 car bays. They differ only in unit count — 54 against 81 — and, on the one portal’s indicative figures, by RM5,000. The distinguishing feature is published nowhere: not in the filed schedule, not in the brochures’ Pelan Lantai headings, not in any press piece. A buyer comparing B against C has literally nothing to go on, and it is the first question to put to the sales gallery.
All 594 units are Schedule H — but the boutique hotel and the supermarket are bare headings
The good half first. Both phases file Schedule H, and every one of the five filed unit types is a 2-, 3- or 4-bedroom residential layout: no SOHO, no SOFO, no studio-office, no dual-key, nothing outside the HDA in either statutory schedule. The smallest unit is a 700 sq ft two-bedroom, generous for an entry type at this band. Now the open question. Both brochures head the project Pembangunan Guna Campur and list three components — a. Apartmen Berservis, b. Hotel Butik, c. Pasaraya. The statutory unit schedule covers only (a). For the hotel and the supermarket neither brochure prints a unit count, a floor area, a storey allocation, a price or a strata designation. The most defensible reading is that both are developer-retained commercial space rather than sale units — but that is a reading, not a filed fact, and if the hotel shares one strata scheme with the apartments it affects the maintenance charge and the sinking fund.
Exactly one distance is published for this project by anybody, and no rail station is named at all
“About 5 km to Putrajaya” — that is the entire published distance set. Six outlets carry it, but the independence check matters: all six published between 5 and 15 June 2026, all quote the same executive, all carry the same land area, tower count, unit count and entry price. It is one developer press release reproduced six times, and three of the six share one publishing house. Treat it as a single developer claim. Then the absences: no source names any rail station whatsoever — no KTM, MRT, LRT, ERL or monorail, and no distance to one. About twenty places are named with no figures at all: Cyberjaya, Dengkil town, Sepang, five named schools and universities, four hospitals and clinics, four malls, and four expressways. Kuala Lumpur city centre is not even named. Nothing has been estimated to fill those gaps.
“80% of units above 1,000 sq ft” CHECKS OUT — the only superlative here that survives arithmetic
StarProperty reports that about 80% of the units are above 1,000 sq ft. From the filed schedule: types B + C + D + E = 54 + 81 + 54 + 54 = 243 of 297 units, which is 81.8%, per phase and across both towers. The claim is true and slightly understated. It is the one claim on this project that stands up to the numbers. By contrast: “33 facilities” (one outlet) has no list anywhere and no filed document counts facilities at all; and “the first integrated mixed development in Jenderam” appears at four different strengths across four outlets from one press release — “the first”, “one of the first”, “one of the earlier”, “among the earliest” — and no register or third party supports an absolute.
Three different price ceilings circulate, and three different unit counts
The filed statutory maxima are RM706,310 (phase 1) and RM701,840 (phase 2), and the register’s band is identical to the filing on both phases. Against that, NST publishes a band topping out at RM680,000, and the highest per-type indicative figure on the one portal that publishes a schedule is RM624,840. Three ceilings, one project. On units: 297 or 594, depending on the outlet. The filings settle both — 297 per registered phase, 594 in total, RM250,000 to RM706,310 / RM701,840 as filed. Nothing published anywhere sits below the filed minimum of RM250,000, so no figure had to be withheld on that head; the press’s “from RM250,000” matches the filing to the ringgit.
The developer’s own About page contradicts itself three times
myra.com.my/about-myra.html says OIB has built 26,313 homes and “more than 28,000”; that there are 9 Myra projects and 12; and that OIB was formed in 1986 and incorporated in 1993. The parent’s registration number, 199301017406, is consistent with 1993. The same page says “we are often recognized for our affordable and quality homes” with no award, body, year or source named — and sits over a filed band reaching RM706,310, on a licence whose 19355-4 phase is filed at RM2.2m–RM3.4m. Treat all of it as marketing copy, and note that GDV is reported two incompatible ways too: The Edge calls RM294 million the whole development’s value, StarProperty calls the identical figure the serviced residence’s alone.
What is actually being built, and the dated record behind it
The statistics band carries only figures a filing, the government register or a named source published. The facilities columns are deliberately lopsided, because the sources are: the developer’s filed level assignment is one word on one level, while everything a buyer would recognise as a facility comes from a single press release with no level attached to any of it.
19355-6 and 19355-7, filedFacilities — what the filings assign, what one press release asserts, and the two components nobody quantifies
The developer publishes no facilities schedule for this project — not a graphic one and not a text one. This is the weakest-sourced part of the project and the page says so rather than dressing it up. Read the first column before the second: the filed documents assign one word, Fasiliti, to one level, and name nothing.
What the two filed brochures actually assign, by level
- Tingkat Aras Bawah Tanah (LG) — Fasiliti. That is the entire filed facilities assignment on both phases: the bare word “facilities” on one level, with not a single individual facility named
- Aras Bawah (G) · Tingkat Bawah Atas (UG) · levels 1–25 — serviced apartments
- Level 26 — Atas bumbung (rooftop). No facility is named on it by either brochure.
- Both brochures’ section headings in full: a. Apartmen Berservis, b. Hotel Butik, c. Pasaraya, Pelan Lantai, Pelan Lokasi, Spesifikasi, Galeri Jualan Myra Embun. There is no facilities page and no facilities list.
Named by the June 2026 press release only
- Swimming pool(s) — one outlet
- Landscaped gardens — one outlet
- Gymnasium — one outlet
- Children’s playground, described as covered / indoor — four outlets
- Co-working space — five outlets
- Community farming area — three outlets
- Multipurpose hall — four outlets
- Library space — one outlet
- Community spaces / recreational zones — five outlets
- EV charging facilities — four outlets, no bay count
- Same-level parking on selected residential floors — three outlets; which floors is not published
- Smart access-card security — three outlets
- Partial furnishing / semi-fitted package — three outlets, no specification schedule published
- Not one of the above is assigned to a level by any source. All of it comes from one June 2026 press release
The two filed components that are bare headings
- Hotel Butik — a boutique hotel. Filed as a component heading on both brochures. No room count, no operator, no brand, no floor allocation, no strata designation, no price, no statement of whether any part of it is for sale.
- Pasaraya — a supermarket. Also a filed component heading on both. No floor area, no level, no operator, no lot count, no statement of whether the lots are for sale.
- Retail lots / F&B outlets — named by all seven press pieces. No lot count, no floor area, no level, no statement of HDA or non-HDA status.
- The statutory unit schedule covers component (a), the apartments, and nothing else. The most defensible reading is that the hotel and the pasaraya are developer-retained commercial space rather than sale units — but no reachable source shows any non-HDA strata unit being offered for sale here, and that is a reading, not a filed fact
- Why it matters: if the hotel block shares one strata scheme with the two residential towers, it changes the maintenance-charge and sinking-fund base for every apartment owner. Nothing published says either way.
Not published, therefore not on this page
- A facilities schedule of any kind. The filed brochures assign one word to one level
- The list behind the “33 facilities” claim. One outlet states it; about nine are named; no source lists 33 and no filed document counts facilities at all
- Total car-park bays. Only the per-unit allocation is filed — 2 bays, and 2–3 for type E
- Which floors get the advertised “same-level parking”
- The podium and car-park storey count, and how the filed 25 reconciles with the filed 28
- Lift count and lift-to-unit ratio
- EV charging bay count
- Maintenance charge psf and the sinking fund
- Master-title and strata-subdivision status — whether the hotel, the supermarket and the two towers share one strata scheme or are separately subdivided
- The land-use category on the title — commercial or residential. Critical on a serviced apartment, and in neither brochure, neither register record nor any press piece
- The architect, engineer, quantity surveyor and main contractor. No name at all, in any filed document or Bursa announcement
- Whether the two towers are structurally identical, despite separate plan approvals
- Whether the phases are delivered together or sequentially, and how long after phase 1 phase 2 starts
- What distinguishes type B from type C
- Phase 1’s vacant-possession date
- Any render, floor plan or site photograph. Ask me and I will put every one of these to OIB Properties (PRV) Sdn Bhd in writing
Dated record — the two filings and the KPKT register
xxx for the validity.XXXX for both fields. The two permits are six days apart and both post-date the launch coverage by about a month.P45-20260713-00019870). It carries no Nama Projek label at all — the string “Myra Embun” appears on it only inside the heading Galeri Jualan Myra Embun and inside the printed website address, so phase 1’s scheme name rests on the register, not on its own filed advertisement.temp-P45-20260714-… rather than the stable P45-<date>-<8 digits> form. It resolves today, but a temp- path should not be treated as durable. This brochure is the one that prints Nama Projek: Myra Embun — and 28 storeys.- in the register. No first SPA date exists on the public record, so neither the original nor the extended delivery date can be computed for phase 1 at all. Its vacant possession is genuinely indeterminate, and this page prints none.19355-6 and 19355-7 (and the walk across -1 to -8), all four GreenRE rating tiers, the developer’s own pages and the seven named press pieces. Register status on this read: phase 2 Belum Mula, 0.00% complete, no CCC and no vacant possession on either phase. Both selling permits current. No image of this project found anywhere.Five filed types — and the filed schedule and the marketed schedule agree exactly
This is the cleanest filed-versus-marketed agreement in this whole series, and it deserves to be said positively rather than left as a silent absence. Every built-up, bedroom and bathroom count published by the one portal that carries a schedule matches the statutory unit schedule in both filed brochures. The schedule also reconciles internally: 54 + 54 + 81 + 54 + 54 = 297, matching the filed Jumlah Unit and the register’s bilangan unit on both phases, for 594 across both towers. There is no floor plan to show for any of them, because the developer publishes none and no portal carries one.
Type A — 700 sq ft, 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
The entry type, and unusually generous for an entry type in this price band — a 700 sq ft two-bedroom rather than a studio. The filings print square feet (kps) and no square-metre figure for any Myra Embun type, so any m² figure you see elsewhere is somebody’s conversion and none is offered here. Note what the filing has and the marketed schedule does not: the car-park allocation.
Ask for the Type A plan and the price listType B — 1,050 sq ft, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
Types B and C are filed as the same size, the same bedroom count, the same bathroom count and the same car-park allocation. They differ only in unit count — 54 against 81 — and, on one portal’s indicative figures, by RM5,000. The distinguishing feature is not published anywhere: not in either statutory schedule, not in the brochures’ Pelan Lantai headings, not in any press piece. Orientation? Stack position? Balcony? No source says. It is the first question to put to the sales gallery, and this page will not guess at the answer.
Ask what distinguishes Type B from Type CType C — 1,050 sq ft, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
The project’s workhorse type by volume — 81 of the 297 units in each phase, or 162 of 594. On the arithmetic of the filed schedule, C alone is 27.3% of each tower. Everything said about Type B about the missing distinction applies equally here, from the other side: a buyer being shown “a 1,050 sq ft three-bedroom” at Myra Embun cannot tell from any published document which of the two types they are being shown. Insist that the booking form and the SPA name the type.
Ask which type a specific unit actually isType D — 1,300 sq ft, 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms
The first of the two four-bedroom types, and the point at which the project stops looking like a mass-market compact scheme. A 1,300 sq ft four-bedroom with three bathrooms and two car bays is a family layout, and it is one of the reasons the 81.8% above 1,050 sq ft figure holds. Nothing is published about which levels or stacks carry it, and no unit-by-unit or floor-by-floor price list exists anywhere, so no per-type price appears on this page.
Ask for the Type D plan and availabilityType E — 1,490 sq ft, 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2–3 car bays
The largest filed layout, and the only one the filing gives a variable car-park allocation — 2–3 bays, against a flat 2 for every other type. Which E units get the third bay is not published, and no project total for car-park bays is printed on either brochure, so the development’s total parking provision is unknown. My arithmetic on the filed schedule: total saleable residential area is 330,210 sq ft per phase and 660,420 sq ft across both towers — not a filed figure, and offered only because the schedule reconciles exactly.
Ask which Type E units get the third car bayLayout particulars read from the statutory unit schedule of each filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure — P45-20260713-00019870 for 19355-6 and temp-P45-20260714-… for 19355-7 — never from a brochure’s narrative prose, and cross-checked against the per-type schedule on edgeprop.my/content/1916987, the only source that publishes one. All five types agree across both. Two limits of that portal schedule, stated plainly: it gives sizes with no statement of whether they are built-up or strata area, and it does not say that its 297 units are one phase of two — a reader of that page would think the project has 297 units. The car-park allocation appears only in the filing. No m² figure is filed for any type and none is converted here. No floor plan, render or layout image is published for this project by the developer, by any portal or by any press piece, so none appears above. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Why there are no renders on this page
No images from the developer’s marketing are reproduced here. A render is drawn to sell. It is not something the developer is contractually bound to build, and there is nothing in it you can check against a document.
Ask for these three in writing instead: the approved building plan, the unit layout with its stated built-up area, and the specification schedule attached to the sale and purchase agreement. Those bind the developer. A render does not.
Jenderam Hilir, Dengkil, Daerah Sepang — and the one distance anybody publishes
The pin below is the registered coordinate from the KPKT project record for phase 1, not a guess. District needs care here, because both of this project’s own register records print daerah: “-” — so the district rests on the approving authority instead, and that is a sound proof rather than an inference: Majlis Perbandaran Sepang’s jurisdiction is Daerah Sepang, and MP Sepang is the filed Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan on both brochures, with a building-plan reference each.
Neither filed brochure prints an address for the development site. What both print is the sales gallery: Lot 3625, Jalan Utama 1, Taman Desa Jenderam Hilir, 43000 Dengkil, Selangor, telephone 03-4810 0477 — a gallery address, not a site address, and the distinction is kept throughout this page. The addresses in circulation are marketing: “Jenderam, Dengkil” (The Edge, NST, Utusan, StarProperty, BusinessToday) and “Jenderam Hilir, Dengkil, Selangor” (one EdgeProp piece). 43000 is published here as the gallery / marketing postcode only, because no postcode is filed for the site.
What the filings actually print about where this is
- Negeri: Selangor — register records
19355-6and19355-7 - Daerah: NOT PRINTED — both Myra Embun records return
-, while all five Myra Saujana phases on the same licence print Sepang - Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan: Majlis Perbandaran Sepang, on both filed brochures — and MP Sepang’s jurisdiction is Daerah Sepang, which is what settles the district
- No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan: MPSepang 600-34/3/690 (
19355-6) and MPSEPANG 600-34/3/689 (19355-7) — two separate MP Sepang building-plan approvals, one per tower. Note the inversion: the later-permitted phase carries the lower reference number - Registered coordinates 2.899347, 101.730414 and 2.899452, 101.730411 — about 12 m apart, my arithmetic
- Keluasan Tanah: 5.08 acres, printed on BOTH phases — therefore the whole site
- Mukim, seksyen, lot and PT number: NOT PRINTED. Absent from both brochures, both register records and every press piece, with no Bursa land or contractor announcement naming this site to recover them from
- The land-use category (kegunaan tanah) is NOT PRINTED either. On a serviced apartment that drives the utility tariff, the assessment rate and sometimes the financing margin. This page asserts neither commercial nor residential title — check it on the title before you sign
The only distance published for this project, by anyone
- Putrajaya — “about 5 km”. Carried by The Edge, NST, Utusan, BusinessToday and both EdgeProp pieces
- But that is one source, not six. All six published between 5 and 15 June 2026, all quote the same executive, and all carry the same land area, tower count, unit count, built-up range and entry price. It is one developer press release reproduced six times — and three of the six belong to one publishing house. Treat “5 km to Putrajaya” as a single developer claim
- Myra Saujana, the developer’s own neighbouring project: no source publishes the distance. From the two sets of filed coordinates, my own haversine arithmetic gives about 0.8–1.0 km — 786 m to
19355-1, 788 m to-4, 921 m to-2, 1,041 m to-3and-5. That is a computation from filed data, not a published figure, and it is labelled as such - Expressways named, with no distance to any interchange by any source: Maju Expressway (MEX), North–South Expressway (PLUS), Lingkaran Putrajaya, and South Klang Valley Expressway (SKVE) — the last by one outlet only
Named by a source, but with no figure attached — so no figure appears here
- Townships: Cyberjaya (five outlets), Sepang (two), Dengkil town centre (one). No distance to any of them
- Education: SK Jenderam Hilir · SMK Dengkil · UiTM Dengkil Campus · Multimedia University (MMU) Cyberjaya · Xiamen University Malaysia. All named by one outlet, none measured
- Healthcare: Hospital Cyberjaya · Hospital Putrajaya · Klinik Kesihatan Dengkil · Hospital Serdang. Named, none measured
- Retail: IOI City Mall Putrajaya · Alamanda Shopping Centre Putrajaya · DPULZE Shopping Centre Cyberjaya · Tamarind Square Cyberjaya. Named, none measured
- That is about twenty named places and one published figure between them. Not one of these distances has been estimated here, and nothing was copied from the sibling Myra Saujana page or from a maps lookup
Distances no source publishes — therefore not on this page
- Any rail station whatsoever. No KTM, MRT, LRT, ERL or monorail station is named by any filed document or any press piece, let alone measured. Dengkil has no rail station of its own; Putrajaya Sentral and Serdang KTM are the obvious candidates, but no source publishes a distance to either, so neither is printed here with a figure
- KLIA and klia2 — not named by any source, despite the project sitting in Daerah Sepang
- Kuala Lumpur city centre — not named at all, by anybody
- Travel time, in minutes, to anywhere
- Any distance from the sales gallery to the site
- There is no portal project page for this development to even get these wrong, which is a fair summary of the whole location picture
Location particulars read from the two filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochures, the KPKT TEDUH register records for 19355-6 and 19355-7, and the seven named press pieces of June 2026. The district is established from the filed approving authority and its jurisdiction, because the project’s own register records leave daerah blank. The Selangor affordable-housing register at ehartanah.lphs.gov.my was read and carries no Myra, Embun, Saujana, Jenderam or OIB record on the page reachable here — but its search parameter is inert and the listing runs to at least 19 pages, so that absence is not a negative and is not used as one; the affordability finding on this page rests on the filed documents instead. Every distance on this page is either the developer’s own single published figure or labelled as my arithmetic from filed coordinates. Nothing is estimated.
Statutory register — MYRA EMBUN, both filed phases side by side
Malaysian law requires a licensed housing developer to file and display statutory advertisement particulars, and that filing is public. Myra Embun has two of them, one per registered phase under a single developer’s licence, and they are the spine of this page rather than a footnote — which matters more here than usual, because the filings are very nearly the only documentation this project has. Each column sets out the particulars as that phase’s own filed brochure prints them, with the KPKT register’s field alongside wherever the two disagree. On this project they disagree in four places: the licence start date, the permit number and its validity, the storey count, and the delivery date.
(A) Phase 19355-6 — 297 serviced-apartment units, 25 storeys | (B) Phase 19355-7 — 297 serviced-apartment units, 25 storeys (brochure prints 28) |
|---|---|
| Nama Projek NOT PRINTED — this brochure carries no Nama Projek label at all; “Myra Embun” appears on it only in the heading Galeri Jualan Myra Embun and in the website address, so the scheme name rests on the register Pemaju Berlesen OIB Properties (PRV) Sdn Bhd No. Pendaftaran Pemaju 1085936-T Alamat pemaju NOT PRINTED — the statutory block’s developer-address field is absent. The only address either brochure prints is the sales gallery: Lot 3625, Jalan Utama 1, Taman Desa Jenderam Hilir, 43000 Dengkil, tel 03-4810 0477 No. Lesen Pemaju 19355/04-2031/0082 (R) — one licence covers all eight phases on this serial Tempoh Sah Lesen 10/04/2025 to 09/04/2031 as this brochure prints it — the register prints the start as 10/04/2026, one year later. The expiry agrees, and it governs: current, about 4½ years to run No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan (APDL) BLANK on the filed brochure — the field carries no value at all. Recovered from the register: 19355-6/07-2029/0497(A)-(S), with the register’s (A) active suffix Tempoh Sah Permit xxx — a literal placeholder on the filed brochure. Register: 5 July 2026 to 4 July 2029 — current, about 2 years 9 months to runPihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEPANG — and its jurisdiction is what establishes Daerah Sepang, because the register leaves daerah blank on both phases No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan MPSepang 600-34/3/690 Jenis Bangunan / Kediaman Pangsapuri Servis 25 Tingkat (Jenis A, B, C, D dan E) — register komponen.jenis: Pangsapuri Servis Jenis Perjanjian Jual Beli (register) JADUAL H — so every unit in this phase is HDA-licensed strata title housing accommodation Jumlah Unit 297 — the filed figure and the register’s bilangan unit agree. One tower per phase: the phase is the block Bilangan Tingkat 25 Tingkat, printed twice on this brochure, and the register agrees: 25 Pegangan Tanah KEKAL — freehold. There is therefore no lease expiry to print Sekatan Kepentingan TIADA — no restriction in interest filed Bebanan / Gadaian Tanah TIADA — no encumbrance filed, which is why no chargee bank is named: there is none to name Keluasan Tanah 5.08 acres — and the identical figure is printed on the other phase too, so it is the WHOLE site, not this phase’s parcel. 5.08 ac = 2.0558 ha, my conversion Built-up schedule Printed, and it reconciles. Type A 700 kps ×54 · B 1,050 ×54 · C 1,050 ×81 · D 1,300 ×54 · E 1,490 ×54 = 297. All in square feet; no m² figure is filed for any type Bilik tidur / Bilik air 2–4 bedrooms, 2–3 bathrooms across the five types. No studio, no SOHO, no SOFO, no studio-office, no dual-key in the filed schedule Tempat Letak Kereta 2 bays per unit; Type E 2–3. No project total is printed Diskaun Bumiputera NOT PRINTED — no such row exists on this filed advertisement at all. No RSKU type letter, no quota row and no LPHS reference either Harga Jualan Unit — Minimum RM250,000.00 Harga Jualan Unit — Maksimum RM706,310.00 — and the register’s band is identical. This ceiling is what refutes any Rumah Selangorku reading of the project Register price band (cross-check) Identical to the filed band on this phase — no splice, no divergence Tarikh Dijangka Siap April 2029 — superseded; see the rows below Tempoh pembinaan asal (register) 36 bulan Pindaan tempoh serah kosong (register) YA — approved. Tempoh tambahan diluluskan 12 bulan; tempoh pembinaan baharu 48 bulan Tarikh PJB pertama - — NO FIRST SPA DATE IS FILED FOR THIS PHASE. Consequence: neither the original nor the extended vacant possession date can be computed. Phase 1’s delivery date is genuinely indeterminate on the public record, and this page prints noneSerah kosong baharu - — cannot be computed, for the reason immediately aboveComponent status no progress figure published for this phase on this read Tarikh CCC - — not issuedNama arkitek / juruukur / jurutera NOT PRINTED Components filed on this brochure a. Apartmen Berservis · b. Hotel Butik · c. Pasaraya — the statutory unit schedule covers only (a); the hotel and the supermarket carry no unit count, no floor area, no level, no price and no strata designation Advertisement approved by Jabatan Perumahan Negara, with readers directed to teduh.kpkt.gov.my to verify — which is exactly what was done for this page | Nama Projek Myra Embun — printed as Nama Projek Pemaju Berlesen OIB Properties (PRV) Sdn Bhd No. Pendaftaran Pemaju 1085936-T Alamat pemaju NOT PRINTED — the statutory block’s developer-address field is absent. The only address either brochure prints is the sales gallery: Lot 3625, Jalan Utama 1, Taman Desa Jenderam Hilir, 43000 Dengkil, tel 03-4810 0477 No. Lesen Pemaju 19355/04-2031/0082 (R) — one licence covers all eight phases on this serial Tempoh Sah Lesen 10/04/2025 to 09/04/2031 as this brochure prints it — the register prints the start as 10/04/2026, one year later. The expiry agrees, and it governs: current, about 4½ years to run No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan (APDL) XXXX — a literal placeholder on the filed brochure. Recovered from the register: 19355-7/07-2029/0513(A)-(S), with the (A) active suffixTempoh Sah Permit XXXX — placeholder again. Register: 11 July 2026 to 10 July 2029 — current, about 2 years 9 months to runPihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEPANG — and its jurisdiction is what establishes Daerah Sepang, because the register leaves daerah blank on both phases No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan MPSEPANG 600-34/3/689 Jenis Bangunan / Kediaman Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan — a different filed string from phase 1’s Pangsapuri Servis, for the same thing; the register normalises both to Pangsapuri Servis Jenis Perjanjian Jual Beli (register) JADUAL H — so every unit in this phase is HDA-licensed strata title housing accommodation Jumlah Unit 297 — the filed figure and the register’s bilangan unit agree. One tower per phase: the phase is the block Bilangan Tingkat 28 on this brochure — which disagrees with phase 1’s 25 and with the register’s 25 for this very phase. This page publishes 25 Pegangan Tanah KEKAL — freehold. There is therefore no lease expiry to print Sekatan Kepentingan TIADA — no restriction in interest filed Bebanan / Gadaian Tanah TIADA — no encumbrance filed, which is why no chargee bank is named: there is none to name Keluasan Tanah 5.08 acres — and the identical figure is printed on the other phase too, so it is the WHOLE site, not this phase’s parcel. 5.08 ac = 2.0558 ha, my conversion Built-up schedule Printed, and it reconciles. Type A 700 kps ×54 · B 1,050 ×54 · C 1,050 ×81 · D 1,300 ×54 · E 1,490 ×54 = 297. All in square feet; no m² figure is filed for any type Bilik tidur / Bilik air 2–4 bedrooms, 2–3 bathrooms across the five types. No studio, no SOHO, no SOFO, no studio-office, no dual-key in the filed schedule Tempat Letak Kereta 2 bays per unit; Type E 2–3. No project total is printed Diskaun Bumiputera NOT PRINTED — no such row exists on this filed advertisement at all. No RSKU type letter, no quota row and no LPHS reference either Harga Jualan Unit — Minimum RM250,000.00 Harga Jualan Unit — Maksimum RM701,840.00 — register band identical. RM4,470 below phase 1’s ceiling, and no source explains the difference Register price band (cross-check) Identical to the filed band on this phase — no splice, no divergence Tarikh Dijangka Siap April 2029 — superseded; see the rows below Tempoh pembinaan asal (register) 36 bulan Pindaan tempoh serah kosong (register) YA — approved. Tempoh tambahan diluluskan 12 bulan; tempoh pembinaan baharu 48 bulan Tarikh PJB pertama 29 July 2026 — filed. On the original 36-month period, vacant possession fell due 29 July 2029 Serah kosong baharu 29 JULY 2030 — the contractual vacant possession for this phase, on the amended 48-month period. Fifteen months later than the April 2029 this brochure prints Component status Belum Mula, 0.00% complete — construction has not started, so nothing is late and this page does not call the extension a delay Tarikh CCC - — not issuedNama arkitek / juruukur / jurutera NOT PRINTED Components filed on this brochure a. Apartmen Berservis · b. Hotel Butik · c. Pasaraya — the statutory unit schedule covers only (a); the hotel and the supermarket carry no unit count, no floor area, no level, no price and no strata designation Advertisement approved by Jabatan Perumahan Negara, with readers directed to teduh.kpkt.gov.my to verify — which is exactly what was done for this page |
Read the two columns together. The licensee, the registration number, the licence, the approving authority, the freehold tenure, the absence of any restriction or encumbrance, the 5.08-acre parcel, the unit count, the five-type built-up schedule, the Schedule H contract, the April 2029 expected completion and the approved 12-month extension are identical across both phases — so the differences are what matter. Four of them do. First, the permit. Both brochures file it as a placeholder — blank and xxx on phase 1, XXXX twice on phase 2 — and the register recovers both real serials, both current, both (A) active. Second, the storeys: 25, 25 and 28 across three filed fields. Third, the delivery date: phase 2’s contractual vacant possession is 29 July 2030, while phase 1 has no first SPA date filed at all and therefore no computable date. Fourth, the licence start: 10/04/2025 on both brochures against 10/04/2026 in the register. Two further absences run across both columns and are not cosmetic: no Diskaun Bumiputera row exists on either filed advertisement, and neither the mukim and lot nor the land-use category is printed anywhere.
Price labelling, so there is no ambiguity about what is published above. Every RM figure in the two columns is a filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum or maximum (Harga Jualan Unit) as printed in that phase’s own filed KPKT advertisement brochure, and the KPKT register’s own price band is identical to the filing on both phases — so there is no splice here of the kind this series has had to flag elsewhere. These are project-wide filed bands, never a per-type price and never a per-unit price: no source anywhere publishes a floor-by-floor or unit-by-unit price list for this development, which is precisely why the per-type “indicative” figures one portal carried at launch are not reproduced on this page — they cannot be reconciled to the filed band without the list that does not exist. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The price that governs what you pay is the price list and the SPA at the sales gallery, for the specific unit, on the day.
Can a foreigner buy at Myra Embun? On the filed prices, no — and the margin is very wide
Selangor applies a minimum purchase price for foreign buyers by zone, and it is the highest in the country. In Zone 1 and Zone 2 the threshold is RM2,000,000 per unit, and it applies to strata properties and gated landed strata only; in Zone 3 — which is Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — it is RM1,000,000. Daerah Sepang is not in Zone 3, so the threshold that applies to Myra Embun is RM2,000,000. Now hold that against the filings. The highest filed statutory figure anywhere on this project is RM706,310 — phase 1’s maximum — with phase 2 at RM701,840. So on the filed statutory price ranges, not a single unit in either registered phase comes close to the Selangor foreign-buyer floor; the gap is well over RM1.29 million. The comparison and the arithmetic are mine; every price figure in it is the filed one. For completeness: on building form the units would qualify, since both phases are filed Schedule H strata title housing accommodation and the threshold applies to strata. It is the price, not the form, that fails the test. A caveat this page owes its overseas readers: the developer addresses foreign eligibility nowhere, and state thresholds are policy rather than statute and do change — so have the current Selangor threshold confirmed in writing before anyone signs anything, and be very wary of being told the project is open to foreign buyers on these filed prices.
Construction progress — how much is built?
Phase 2 is filed Belum Mula at 0.00% complete — construction has not started. No CCC and no vacant possession is recorded on either phase; both fields read -. No progress figure is published for phase 1 on this read, and that absence is printed rather than filled. This is why the approved 12-month extension on both phases is not a delay, and why this page refuses to present it as one: there is nothing late, no CCC to test a date against, and on phase 2 the clock has only just started. What the extension does establish is the contractual outer limit — 29 July 2030 for phase 2, and nothing computable for phase 1. One honest caution for buyers reading the April 2029 in both brochures: an extension of time of a Schedule H delivery period is the mechanism that shifts the date from which liquidated damages run. A buyer who signs to a 48-month period is signing to 2030, whatever the brochure says. Take your own legal advice on what your SPA actually commits the developer to.
What this page does not publish, and why
Louis’s standing policy, applied to every project page on this site: no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera figure, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, and no yield or ROI projection is published here, ever. On this project there is almost nothing to withhold under that rule, and the reason is worth stating: no source anywhere carries a Myra Embun figure below the filed statutory minimum of RM250,000 — the press’s “from RM250,000” matches the filing to the ringgit — and there is no Diskaun Bumiputera field on either filed advertisement at all, so there is nothing withheld on that head either; the field simply does not exist. What is deliberately left off: the per-type “indicative” figures one portal published at the June 2026 launch. All of them sit above the filed minimum and below the filed maximum, so the withholding rule is not what excludes them — what excludes them is that they cannot be reconciled to the filed band (that portal’s top figure is RM81,470 below the filed ceiling, and no floor-by-floor price list exists anywhere to explain the gap), they come from one publisher at one moment four months ago, and a third source publishes a different ceiling again. The filed statutory band is government-sourced, is the SPA price basis, and does the job. Also left off, for cause: the “33 facilities” count, which no source lists; any absolute “first in Jenderam” claim, which four outlets state at four different strengths from one press release; any image, because none exists; and every distance nobody published. Everything a buyer would ask that no source answers is in the facilities section above, and the short version is: the lot and mukim, the land-use category, the hotel’s and the supermarket’s particulars, the strata-subdivision structure, the car-park total, the maintenance charge, what distinguishes type B from type C, phase 1’s delivery date, and every distance in metres or minutes. Ask me and I will put any of them to OIB Properties (PRV) Sdn Bhd in writing.
OIB Properties (PRV) Sdn Bhd — an OIB vehicle, and the three schemes sharing its licence
The licensed developer is OIB PROPERTIES (PRV) SDN. BHD. (1085936-T), printed in both filed KPKT advertisement brochures and carried as pemaju on both register records. KPKT developer code 19355, status Aktif, kesalahan: null — no recorded offence — and 8 registered projects, which matches a phase-by-phase walk of the licence exactly. Licence 19355/04-2031/0082 (R), expiring 9 April 2031 on both the brochures’ and the register’s reckoning, with the start date disagreeing by a year. The register holds a registered address at 170-09-01, Livingston Tower, Jalan Argyll, 10050 Seberang Perai Tengah, Pulau Pinang and a business address at Ra-G-23A, Eve Suite @ Ara Damansara, No. 1A, Jalan PJU 1A/41, 47301 Selangor, a telephone of 019-412 7798 (the telefon field itself is null; only telefon2 is populated), emel: “-”, and www.oibgroup.com as the developer’s website. Neither filed brochure prints the developer’s office address at all — the only address on either is the sales gallery at Lot 3625, Jalan Utama 1, Taman Desa Jenderam Hilir, 43000 Dengkil. And not one of the seven press pieces on the launch names this licensee. Every one of them attributes the project to “Myra” or to “Oriental Interest Bhd”. On a page for buyers, the name that matters is the one on the Schedule H: OIB PROPERTIES (PRV) SDN. BHD. (1085936-T).
The brand premise this page was commissioned on was wrong, and correcting it is the first thing a reader deserves. Myra was put to me as a Gamuda Land affordable-homes brand. It is not, and Gamuda Land has nothing to do with this project. “The Myra brand is a product of OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd (200901008425 / 851411-M)” — that is the developer’s own sentence, in the footer of myra.com.my. The listed parent is Oriental Interest Berhad (199301017406 / 272144-M), Bursa ticker OIB. “Gamuda” appears in neither filed brochure, on neither register record, on myra.com.my, on oibgroup.com, or in any of the seven press pieces; KPKT’s developer register returns six Gamuda-named developers and not one is licence 19355 or carries a scheme called Myra anything. The nearest Gamuda thing in the vicinity is Bandar Gamuda Cove in Daerah Kuala Langat, about 13 km from Myra Saujana — a coincidence of the word “Cove”. So three different companies get called “the developer” across the sources: OIB Properties (PRV) Sdn Bhd (1085936-T), the licensee and the only name that matters for your contract; OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd, which owns the brand; and Oriental Interest Berhad, the listed parent. “Myra” itself is a brand, not a company. Note the SPV pattern while you are here: q=OIB on the KPKT developer register returns six separate licensed vehicles — OIB Properties (C), (CV), (K), (KV), (PRV) and (SW) — plus Myra Land Sdn Bhd and Myra Gardens Sdn Bhd elsewhere in the register, while q=ORIENTAL INTEREST returns zero: the listed parent holds no developer licence of its own. Myra Embun sits on (PRV), and only on (PRV).
One licence serial, three different registered schemes — and this is the trap most likely to put wrong information in front of a buyer. A walk of 19355-6 through 19355-10 finds eight live phases (-9 and -10 are 404s) and three scheme names. 19355-1 to 19355-5 are Myra Saujana: 2-storey terrace and semi-detached houses, Schedule G, 253 units across five phases, with -1, -2 and -3 already completed with CCC on 27 August 2020, 10 February 2022 and 11 August 2023, and -4 and -5 under construction. 19355-6 and 19355-7 are Myra Embun, this project. And 19355-8 is Pangsapuri Saujana Idaman — 286 units, 21 storeys, Schedule H, at a single flat filed price of RM290,000 (minimum equals maximum) — a fourth scheme that no consumer source lists anywhere, and the likeliest reason somebody might mistake this licence for an affordable-housing licence. The licence number is the same string on all three schemes’ filings, so any claim built on “licence 19355” is a claim about OIB Properties (PRV) Sdn Bhd and about nothing else. How far apart are Embun and Saujana, actually? From the filed coordinates, my own haversine arithmetic: 786 m to 19355-1, 788 m to -4, 921 m to -2, 1,041 m to -3 and -5 — roughly 0.8 to 1.0 km. Neighbouring, and genuinely separate. Nothing from the Saujana filings has been carried onto this page, and the reason is arithmetic: Saujana’s -4 phase is filed at RM2,209,920–RM3,377,160 against Embun’s RM250,000–RM706,310, on a different statutory contract, in a different built form.
On awards there is nothing to borrow and nothing to refuse, because the developer makes no award claim at all. myra.com.my/about-myra.html is the brand’s own story page and lists no award, no recognition and no certification of any kind; oibgroup.com has no awards page; neither filed brochure carries an award claim; and none of the seven press pieces mentions one. That is a cleaner position than most pages in this series have to report. If any listing or portal ever calls Myra Embun “award-winning”, it is unsupported. The one claim in this territory is the brand’s own “we are often recognized for our affordable and quality homes” — with no award, body, year or source named. Treat it as marketing copy. And treat the rest of that page with the same care, because it contradicts itself three times: 26,313 homes built and “more than 28,000”; 9 Myra projects and 12; OIB formed in 1986 and incorporated in 1993 — the parent’s own registration number, 199301017406, being consistent with 1993. The brand’s “over RM3 billion” GDV claim is corporate, unaudited on that page, and not the licensee’s. One more trap in the same family: every project logo on myra.com.my carries the alt text “Myra Cove logo”, including Myra Saujana, Myra Senja and Putra Idaman — a copy-paste error, and a standing warning against ever identifying anything on that host by filename or alt text.
On green certification: all four GreenRE rating tiers were read, and there is no Myra Embun entry in any of them — but the negative is qualified and this page says so. The register’s tier tables are queried by rating, not by status, and provisional rows sit inside the rating tables, so a complete read means all four. Platinum was not truncated and carries no match. Gold, Silver and Bronze all truncate mid-table, so the honest statement is: no entry for Myra Embun in the reachable portion of the Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze registers. That caution is not theoretical — this series has already recorded a fact sheet that declared a project ungraded on a partial read when it in fact held Bronze, which is the easiest tier to miss. Three near-misses sit in those tables and not one of them is this project. “Myra Idaman” — GreenRE Bronze, RES v3.3, PROVISIONAL, 11 February 2026 — is registered to Myra Gardens Sdn Bhd and is the Gardens Idaman launch at Myra Gardens, Kundang / Rawang: a different project, a different district about 60 km away, a different licensed company, and only provisional. “Residensi Seri Embun” holds Gold, ACTIVE, 20 May 2024 — developer Eastern Oriental Express Sdn Bhd, whose name contains “Oriental” but is not Oriental Interest Berhad. “Casa Embun” holds Silver, ACTIVE, 7 October 2025, developer Ecolake Residence Sdn Bhd. A register read that matched on “Embun” alone would hand this page a Gold rating belonging to someone else, and a read that matched on “Myra” alone would hand it a Bronze belonging to a project 60 km away. Neither is borrowed here. On GBI, the certified-buildings directory was unreachable in this environment, so GBI status is unknown, not absent. And what does the developer itself claim on green? Nothing, for this project. The only sustainability-adjacent features published anywhere are EV charging facilities and a community farming area, both from the press release alone. No source calls Myra Embun green-certified, green-rated or targeting any rating.
Finally, the structural gaps — because they are why so much of this page is blank, and because a buyer should know a page’s limits. First, the project is invisible. It is absent from the ten-project list on myra.com.my and from the brand’s own project index at /myra-homes.html; oibgroup.com does not mention it; myra.com.my/sitemap.xml is a 404; no EdgeProp, PropertyGuru, iProperty, PropertySifu or IQI project record exists; and the microsite its own filed government brochures print, myraembun.my, 301-redirects to a brand-site path that then redirect-loops and cannot be rendered. (A control on a sibling’s project page loops identically, so the loop is a site-wide obstacle rather than proof the Embun page is missing — but the brand site does not link it either way.) Second, there are no images. The brand’s render convention is /images/renderslider/<project>.jpg; both myraembun.jpg and myraembun.png return 404, with a bogus-filename negative control also 404 and a sibling positive control reachable — so that is a verified absence, and every one of the ten listed Myra projects has a render while this one has none. Third, there is no Bursa route in. OIB is listed, but its announcement trail produced only Kedah and Klang land matters and a 222-acre acquisition, none at Jenderam, and no contractor award for this site was found — which is why the lot, the mukim, the land area beyond the filed 5.08 acres, the car-park total, the architect and the main contractor all remain unrecovered. Fourth, no joint venture, land vendor or landowner is named anywhere, and no GDV is a filed field: the only GDV figure in existence is RM294 million, which The Edge frames as the whole development’s value and StarProperty frames as the serviced residence’s alone. RM294m ÷ 594 units = RM494,949 per unit, my arithmetic, which sits comfortably inside the filed band and is therefore consistent with StarProperty’s framing rather than The Edge’s — but that is a consistency check, not proof, and the hotel and supermarket are unpriced, so the whole-development figure is unknown either way. If that figure is ever quoted to you, ask which scope it covers.
Developer, licence, award and certification particulars read from both filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochures; the KPKT TEDUH developer record for code 19355 and the project records for 19355-6 through 19355-8, with -9 and -10 returning 404; the developer-register queries q=OIB (six vehicles), q=GAMUDA (six developers, none related, run as a positive control) and q=ORIENTAL INTEREST (zero); all four GreenRE rating tiers; myra.com.my, its project index and its about page; oibgroup.com; and the seven named press pieces of June 2026. Nothing on this page is attributed to Oriental Interest Berhad that only the Myra brand site published, and no award, green rating, distance, layout, price or image was taken from a sibling Myra project. All read on 8 October 2026.
Questions buyers actually ask about Myra Embun @ Dengkil
Why does this page carry no photographs, renders or floor plans?
myra.com.my and /myra-homes.html run Myra Cove, Myra Tenuman, Myra Senja, Myra Putri, Myra Gardens, Alea Residence, Ara Residence, Myra Dahlia, Myra Saujana and Putra Idaman, and this project is not among them. The brand’s project-render convention is /images/renderslider/<project>.jpg, and both myraembun.jpg and myraembun.png return 404. That test was run properly: a bogus filename returned 404 too, proving the host does not answer missing files with an HTML shell, and a sibling’s render was reachable, proving the method works on that host. So it is a verified absence, not a failed fetch — and every one of the ten listed Myra projects has a render while this one has none. The microsite printed in both of this project’s own filed government brochures, myraembun.my, 301-redirects into the brand site and then redirect-loops. No property portal carries a project record for it — no EdgeProp, PropertyGuru, iProperty, PropertySifu or IQI page. For a 594-unit development that is permitted on two current selling permits and already selling, that is genuinely remarkable. The alternative would have been to borrow a sibling Myra project’s render or a press photograph and caption it vaguely; this page does not do that, on principle. Ask me and I will request the renders, the floor plans and the location plan from the developer directly — and when Louis has them, this page gets them.Is Myra Embun a Gamuda Land project?
myra.com.my. The listed parent is Oriental Interest Berhad (199301017406 / 272144-M), Bursa ticker OIB. The licensed developer of Myra Embun specifically is OIB PROPERTIES (PRV) SDN. BHD. (1085936-T), printed in both filed brochures and on both register records. “Gamuda” appears in no filing, no register record and on no corporate page connected to this project, and KPKT’s developer register returns six Gamuda-named developers, none of them on licence 19355 and none carrying a scheme called Myra anything. The nearest Gamuda development in the area is Bandar Gamuda Cove in Daerah Kuala Langat, about 13 km from the sibling Myra Saujana — a coincidence of the word “Cove”, nothing more. If you have seen Myra described as a Gamuda brand, it is wrong, and this page was itself commissioned on that error before it was corrected.Is Myra Embun a Rumah Selangorku or other affordable-housing scheme?
19355-8, Pangsapuri Saujana Idaman, 286 units at a flat filed RM290,000. That is a different scheme with a different name, and it is not Myra Embun.When will Myra Embun actually be handed over? Both brochures say April 2029.
Are the selling permits current? Both brochures print placeholders.
xxx for Tempoh Sah Permit. Phase 2’s prints XXXX for both fields. So on the filed advertisements alone, the single compliance check a buyer would actually run — is the APDL live? — cannot be performed at all, and the licence validity must never be passed off in its place: a developer’s licence and a project’s selling permit are different instruments with different dates. The KPKT register recovers both real permits: 19355-6/07-2029/0497(A)-(S), valid 5 July 2026 to 4 July 2029, and 19355-7/07-2029/0513(A)-(S), valid 11 July 2026 to 10 July 2029. Both are current as at 8 October 2026, with about two years and nine months to run, and both carry the register’s (A) suffix, which marks the permit active as against the (N) and (R) forms. (Note the register’s own pairing: the licence carries (R) while both project permits carry (A); both are reproduced on this page as filed.) One detail worth knowing: both permits were issued in July 2026, about a month after the June 2026 launch coverage, and six days apart from each other.What exactly am I buying — is it inside the Housing Development Act?
How many units are there — 297 or 594?
Is “80% of units above 1,000 sq ft” true? And what about “33 facilities”?
What distinguishes Type B from Type C? They look identical.
Can a foreigner buy at Myra Embun?
What is the real density, and why do I see 58 units per acre quoted?
How far is it to the nearest train station, the airport, or Kuala Lumpur?
What does this page deliberately not publish?
Want the two filed brochures and both register records, rather than a summary?
On this project there is barely any marketing material to summarise, so what I send is the primary record: both filed KPKT advertisement brochures for 19355-6 and 19355-7, both KPKT register records carrying the real permit serials the brochures left as placeholders, the approved 12-month extensions and phase 2’s 29 July 2030 contractual vacant possession, and the statutory unit schedule for all five types. And I will go and ask for everything this page has had to leave blank — the renders and floor plans nobody publishes, phase 1’s first SPA date, the lot and mukim, the land-use category on the title, the boutique hotel’s and the supermarket’s particulars and strata structure, the car-park total, the maintenance charge, and what actually distinguishes type B from type C.
Louis Koh · Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
I work Kuala Lumpur and Selangor new launches, and I publish the filed statutory particulars and the government register record rather than brochure copy. On Myra Embun that is nearly all there is. This is a 594-unit development with two current selling permits that is absent from its own developer’s website, whose filed project URL redirect-loops, and which no property portal carries at all — so this page is, as far as I can tell, its documentation. The register is the only place that holds the real permit numbers, because both filed brochures printed placeholders. It is the only place that shows the approved 12-month extension on both phases and phase 2’s 29 July 2030 contractual handover, against the April 2029 both brochures print. It is the only place that shows phase 1 has no first SPA date at all, which is why I print no phase-1 delivery date. And it is the only place that confirms Schedule H on all 594 units, with no SOHO and no office suite in either filed schedule — which on this series is good news and worth saying. Where nothing is published — every image, every floor plan, the lot and mukim, the land-use category, the hotel and the supermarket, the car-park total, almost every distance — I say so and I go and ask.
Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 · Built from the two filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochures for 19355-6 and 19355-7, the KPKT TEDUH register records for both phases and the walk across 19355-1 to 19355-8, the KPKT developer register, all four GreenRE rating tiers, the developer’s own myra.com.my and oibgroup.com pages, and seven named press pieces of June 2026, all read on 8 October 2026. THIS PAGE CARRIES NO IMAGES because no published image of this project exists in any source – developer renders and floor plans will be added when Louis obtains them. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Ask a specific question
If you would rather not use WhatsApp, use this. I answer them myself. Only your name and one contact method are required.
The unit mix, the permitted price and how far up it is
None of this table is the developer’s account of itself. It is what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government records from the 7(f) returns: unit type, bedrooms and bathrooms, built-up area, unit count, the price range on the permit, and the certified percentage complete. A brochure price can be revised; the price on the permit was filed. A brochure need not mention progress; the percentage is certified. The status vocabulary is theirs too: Lancar (on schedule), Lewat (behind), Sakit (sick), Terbengkalai (abandoned).
19355-6 · MYRA EMBUN
Overall status: Lancar — on schedule
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pangsapuri Servis 25 storeys Lancar | 2, 3, 4 / 2, 3 | — | 297 | RM250,000.00 – RM706,310.00 | 5.00% |
Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.
This is the document the developer had to file, and the housing department had to approve, before it was allowed to advertise at all — served from the ministry’s own host. It normally carries the location plan, the developer licence and building-plan approval references, the expected completion date, the encumbrance position, and the unit count and price floor and ceiling for each type. The brochure a salesperson hands you can be reissued. This one cannot.
Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 19355-6. Re-read weekly.
19355-7 · MYRA EMBUN
Overall status: Lancar — on schedule
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pangsapuri Servis 25 storeys Lancar | 2, 3, 4 / 2, 3 | — | 297 | RM250,000.00 – RM701,840.00 | 5.00% |
Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.
This is the document the developer had to file, and the housing department had to approve, before it was allowed to advertise at all — served from the ministry’s own host. It normally carries the location plan, the developer licence and building-plan approval references, the expected completion date, the encumbrance position, and the unit count and price floor and ceiling for each type. The brochure a salesperson hands you can be reissued. This one cannot.
Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 19355-7. Re-read weekly.
What to do with the number. Read it against the delivery date in your own agreement, not against what a salesperson says. A project with a year left on its statutory clock and a third of the building up is telling you something the brochure will not.
How does that compare? Every development on this site, grouped by register status — cancelled, abandoned and behind schedule first.
No floor plan is reproduced on this page — but the drawings are findable
A floor plan is the developer’s copyright. This site does not mirror one and let you assume it is official. What it can do is send you to the drawing itself.
The advertisement the developer filed and the housing department approved normally carries the location plan and the unit count and price for each type. A salesperson’s brochure can be reissued. This one cannot.
The drawing that binds the developer is the one attached to your own sale and purchase agreement. Anything on any website is a reference copy — check the schedule to your contract before you sign.