ENLACE SUITES @ Pantai Sentral Park, No. 2 Jalan Pantai Sentral 1, Bukit Kerinchi / Pantai Sentral, 59200 Kuala Lumpur — TWO SEPARATE KPKT REGISTRATIONS, NOT ONE AND NOT A MARKETING SPLIT: 13619-5 registered Enlace @ Pantai Sentral Park = Enlace Suites I, 438 units, and 13619-6 registered Enlace, Pantai Sentral Park = Enlace Suites II, 290 units — two advertising permits, two DBKL building-plan approvals, two statutory price bands, two storey counts, two approved extensions and two delivery dates. Filed Pangsapuri Servis, Jadual H: a HOME, with the full Housing Development Act protection set. Licensee AMONA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., KPKT code 13619 — a joint development with IJM Land, on land leased from the Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur

Seven things this page says that no other page about Enlace Suites does

Each one is read off a register or a filed document, and each one changes what a buyer should ask before paying a deposit.

Twenty-one filed built-ups across two registrations — and not one figure is shared

Read this before any size on this page. Phase I’s filing lists NINE built-ups (474 · 560 · 797 · 872 · 1,249 · 1,561 · 1,249 · 1,302 · 1,733 sq ft) under types A to H. Phase II’s lists TWELVE (506 · 613 · 979 · 979 · 1,227 · 1,485 · 1,593 · 1,862 · 2,034 · 1,001 · 1,216 · 1,593) under A to G3 and RG1/RG2. Not one built-up figure appears in both filings, and not one type letter means the same thing in both: Phase I’s C is 797 sq ft while Phase II’s C1 and C2 are 979; Phase I’s E is 1,249 while Phase II’s E is 1,593; Phase I’s D is 872 while Phase II’s D1 is 1,227. So a type letter does not identify the phase, and no figure on this page is ever carried across. Ask which registration your unit is on before you compare any two numbers. The six floor plans on this page carry a caption-published-by-filename grade, and the page says so rather than implying a stronger one. They come from the developer’s own theme directory, where the type code and the phase are both in the file name — …typeA-2.jpg for Suites I and …ensuite2-typeA.jpg for Suites II. But that host’s wp-json is robots-disallowed while its HTML pages serve normally, so no CMS title and no CMS date is obtainable on it and a confirmed grade is unreachable. The built-up, bed/bath and car-park figures in every caption come from the FILED statutory schedule, never from the developer’s own page.

13619-5 Enlace Suites I — Type A

Filed built-up 474 sq ft · filed 1 bedroom / 1 bathroom · filed car park 1 bay · 110 units of 438

13619-5Filed scheduleMarketed as a studiocaption-published grade

Enlace Suites I — Type A floor plan, 474 sq ft, 1 bedroom / 1 bathroom, 1 car-park bay (filed schedule). The filing says 1 bedroom / 1 bathroom and the developer’s own page markets it as a STUDIO — not a contradiction in substance, but a client comparing the filing to the brochure will see two different products described. 474 sq ft is the filed MINIMUM built-up on this registration, and it sits against a filed statutory minimum price of RM783,600. Phase II’s own Type A is 506 sq ft — a different unit on a different registration, and the two are never averaged into a range on this page.

13619-5 Enlace Suites I — Type C

Filed built-up 797 sq ft · filed 2 bedrooms / 2 bathrooms · filed car park 1–2 bays · 71 units of 438

13619-5Filed scheduleBalcony 1caption-published grade

Enlace Suites I — Type C floor plan, 797 sq ft, 2 bedrooms / 2 bathrooms, 1 to 2 car-park bays, one balcony (filed schedule). The filing and the developer’s page agree on the bed/bath count for this type. Do not read 797 sq ft as Phase II’s C1 or C2, which are both filed at 979 sq ft — same letter, different registration, 182 sq ft apart.

13619-5 Enlace Suites I — Type F

Filed built-up 1,561 sq ft · filed 4+1 bedrooms / 4 bathrooms, marketed 4 / 4 · filed car park 2–3 bays · 37 units of 438

13619-5Filed 4+1/4 vs marketed 4/4Bay window 54 sq ftcaption-published grade

Enlace Suites I — Type F floor plan, 1,561 sq ft, filed 4+1 bedrooms / 4 bathrooms, 2 to 3 car-park bays, bay window 54 sq ft (filed schedule). The FILED figure is printed here: 4+1 / 4. The developer’s own page says 4 / 4. The “+1” is a utility or maid’s room. One field, two readings, one developer — both printed, neither resolved. The 54 sq ft bay window is an accessory area and is stated separately; it is never added to the 1,561.

13619-6 Enlace Suites II — Type A

Filed built-up 506 sq ft · filed 1 bedroom / 1 bathroom · filed car park 1 bay · 28 units of 290

13619-6Filed scheduleMarketed as a studiocaption-published grade

Enlace Suites II — Type A floor plan, 506 sq ft, 1 bedroom / 1 bathroom, 1 car-park bay (filed schedule). This is 13619-6, a different registration from everything above. Its filed MINIMUM built-up is 506 sq ft, against Phase I’s 474 — and the developer’s secondary microsite merges the two into a spliced “474–506” range that belongs to neither phase. This page does not reproduce that splice. Marketed as a studio; filed as 1 bedroom / 1 bathroom.

13619-6 Enlace Suites II — Type C1

Filed built-up 979 sq ft · filed 2 bedrooms / 2 bathrooms · filed car park 1–2 bays · 104 units of 290 — the largest single type on either registration

13619-6Filed scheduleBalcony 1caption-published grade

Enlace Suites II — Type C1 floor plan, 979 sq ft, 2 bedrooms / 2 bathrooms, 1 to 2 car-park bays, one balcony (filed schedule). 104 of the 290 units in this registration are C1, which makes it the single largest type on the whole Enlace licence. Its sibling C2 shares the identical 979 sq ft built-up at the same filed bed/bath count and a different filed car-park allocation (2 rather than 1–2) — and that is as far as the evidence goes. The developer labels C2 a dual key; the filing uses the term nowhere, and the one testable support, the filed kitchen-sink count per type, CANNOT BE READ because the sanitary table’s column headers are missing from the extractable text. UNAVAILABLE, not unsupported.

13619-6 Enlace Suites II — Type E

Filed built-up 1,593 sq ft · filed 4+1 bedrooms / 4 bathrooms, marketed 4 / 4 · filed car park 3 bays · 20 units of 290

13619-6Filed 4+1/4 vs marketed 4/4Maid’s room 1caption-published grade

Enlace Suites II — Type E floor plan, 1,593 sq ft, filed 4+1 bedrooms / 4 bathrooms, 3 car-park bays, one maid’s room (filed schedule). The filed figure is printed; the developer’s page says 4 / 4. And note the trap this type sets: Phase I’s E is 1,249 sq ft, which is 344 sq ft smaller. The letter is the same and the unit is not. By built-up this is one of the types most likely to clear the RM1,000,000 foreign-buyer floor — and that is an ordering by SIZE, not a price finding, because no per-type price is filed by anybody.

NO FLOOR PLAN IS PUBLISHED FOR EITHER TYPE, BY ANYBODY. The developer’s own page uses the label E(G) instead and publishes no plan for G (Taman) or H (Taman).

13619-5 — G (Taman) and H (Taman): filed, and no plan published anywhere

Filed built-ups 1,302 sq ft and 1,733 sq ft · filed 3/3 and 4+1/3, each with 2 terraces · filed car park 2 and 3 bays · ONE UNIT EACH

13619-5No floor plan existsThe filed MAXIMUM built-up2 of 438 units

These two types appear in the filed built-up table, in the filed car-park table and in the developer’s own per-type unit counts — and the developer publishes no floor plan for either. The consequence matters for anyone quoting a range: the project’s filed MAXIMUM built-up on 13619-5, 1,733 sq ft, belongs to a SINGLE unit for which no plan is published anywhere. So “474 – 1,733 sq ft” is a correct filed range in which the top end is one undocumented apartment. The filing holds something the marketing does not, and this page prints it rather than quietly dropping the top of the range.

NOT ILLUSTRATED HERE. A representative three plans per registration were taken; these five duplex and garden types are described from the FILED schedule instead, because the numbers are the point.

13619-6 — the garden and rooftop-garden types, and the accessory-area trap

Filed G1 1,001 · G2 1,216 · G3 1,593 · RG1 1,862 · RG2 2,034 sq ft — 13 units in total

13619-6Filed main parcel onlyAccessory areas stated separatelyNo plan on this page

Filed: G1 1,001 sq ft with a garden of 183 sq ft · G2 1,216 with 237 · G3 1,593 with 377 · RG1 1,862 with a 409 sq ft terrace · RG2 2,034 with 420. The developer’s secondary microsite gives G1 as 1,184, G2 as 1,453 and RG2 as 2,454 — and those reconcile to the square foot: 1,001+183, 1,216+237 and 2,034+420. So the marketed figures are the main parcel PLUS the accessory parcel, added together silently. This page prints the filed main-parcel figure and states the accessory area separately, every time, because the accessory area is what will be stated separately in the strata title. RG1 and RG2 are filed at 5 bedrooms / 4 bathrooms with 3 car-park bays — the only 5-bedroom units on either registration.

Per-type prices are NOT FILED for any of the twenty-one types, in either registration, on any surface — not in either brochure, not in the newspaper advertisement, not in the register’s component rows and not on the developer’s statutory panel. The filings give a band only. That is why this page publishes no per-type figure and why the foreign-buyer count below is undeterminable rather than estimated. Also not published for any type: a ceiling height, a floor finish, a fit-out specification, the block or tower the type sits in, and — for Phase I only — any floor-plan level range. Phase II’s filing does give levels: its garden types sit on Level 08 and its plans run to Level 38.

Gallery — seven renders, and every one of them is 13619-5 Enlace Suites I

THE HONEST GAP, AND IT IS THE BIGGEST ONE ON THIS PAGE: 13619-6 ENLACE SUITES II IS IMAGE-BLOCKED EXCEPT FOR ITS FLOOR PLANS. It has no project page on the group’s own site (that URL returns a 404), no image family of its own in the developer’s media library, and the renders attributed to it on the developer’s other host are printed WITHOUT image URLs. So there is no exterior façade render for Enlace Suites II at any verifiable grade, and this page illustrates that registration with its own floor plans or leaves the space blank — never with a Phase I render. Every render above is Parcel 11, i.e. Enlace Suites I, and every caption says so. The developer labels every one of these images “Artist’s Impression Only” on its own gallery — credit it for that, and note that both towers sit at a peratusSiap of 20.00%, so none of them is a photograph of a built building. Refused and not shown: three precinct files whose CMS titles establish the PRECINCT and no subject; one file in Phase I’s own gallery on the developer’s project page that carries a DIFFERENT parcel code, which may be Enlace Suites II or may be one of the township’s other twelve parcels and is resolved by no document; the retail component’s renders; the sibling registration 13619-4’s whole family; every township-level file, most of them dated before Enlace Suites was registered in December 2024; two township location maps in two spellings; the two facilities banners, because they ARE the level contradiction; an aerial captioned as an actual photograph on a host with no obtainable CMS date; the Open Graph image; and every brochure page image, because the filed brochures reproduce the price table and the ethnic-allocation field. No progress photograph of either tower exists at any grade, and no interior render of any unit type exists on any host.

No. 2 Jalan Pantai Sentral 1, Bukit Kerinchi / Pantai Sentral, 59200 Kuala Lumpur — and exactly three published distances

The filed project address, printed identically in all four filed documents, is No. 2, Jalan Pantai Sentral 1, Pantai Sentral, 59200 Kuala Lumpur. The approving authority is Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, and that is settled from the filed building-plan prefix DBKL.JKB.BP S1 OSC … — not from a coordinate and not from a postcode. DBKL’s planning jurisdiction is the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and nothing else, and S1 is the zone code this series has now recorded across five sheets for this corridor.

13619-5 Enlace @ Pantai Sentral Park and 13619-6 Enlace, Pantai Sentral Park — the two statutory blocks, side by side

Four readable filed statutory advertisements were read for this page — two generations of each phase, in both HIMS path forms, each with a real difference from the other — together with both register records, the Federal Territories’ own RUMAWIP register for the sibling phase, and the developer’s own two statutory panels. Every cell below gives the figure for EACH registration separately and labels it with its code. Nothing is averaged, nothing is spliced, and where two surfaces disagree both readings are printed and the stale one is named field by field. Read 14 October 2026.

Filed and readable on BOTH phases, in BOTH HIMS path forms: the scheme heading, the developer and its registration number, the licence and its validity, DBKL as approving authority, three plan references, the building type, the 99-year lease and its 5/9/2123 expiry, the Sekatan Kepentingan clause in full, Bebanan: Tiada, the unit counts, Phase I’s Baki Unit: 219, the car-park table across 21 types, the completion dates, the price bands, 21 built-ups, and Phase II’s facilities plan at Tingkat 5. NOT PRINTED in the filings but RECOVERABLE, and from where: the advertising permits and their validity, filed as a bare X on all four documents — recovered from the register AND the developer’s panel, so lapse IS assessable; Bilangan Tingkat, from the register only, contradicted three ways; and the per-type unit counts, from the developer’s panel only. NOT PRINTED ANYWHERE, BY ANY SOURCE: Keluasan Tanah, the chargee, every consultant and the main contractor and the contract sum, the lot or PT number, the GFA, the plot ratio, the number of blocks, and any per-type price. CANNOT BE READ, which is kept distinct from all of the above: Sinki Dapur per type. And a third state worth naming: the three COMPLETED registrations on this licence — 13619-1, 13619-2 and 13619-3 — carry iklan: [] and brosur: null, so their statutory particulars are REGISTER-ONLY and nothing about them can be read from a filed advertisement.

Sources for this block: the KPKT TEDUH projek-swasta records for 13619-1 through 13619-6, walked in full, with 13619-7 returning a 404 and the register’s own jumlahProjek: 6 agreeing with the walk; the developer-swasta search, which found this licensee on the JOINT-VENTURE PARTNER’S name after the brand, the township and the registered name all returned nothing, against a same-session positive control; four filed statutory advertisements on KPKT HIMS, with a negative control confirming that a 404 looks different from a real file on that server; the Federal Territories’ own Residensi Wilayah register; the GreenRE Gold tier table and its certification-entry list; the developer’s own two statutory panels; and seven named publishers. Read 14 October 2026. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer, and not legal advice.

How to tell which of the two registrations you are being sold — and why it matters

This is the first question to ask, before price and before layout. The register names the two phases Enlace @ Pantai Sentral Park and Enlace, Pantai Sentral Park — one punctuation mark apart — and the numerals I and II that every human source uses appear in no statutory document anywhere. So a client’s own KPKT search for “Enlace Suites” returns nothing, and a search for “Enlace” returns two records they cannot tell apart. The only reliable discriminator is the register code, and the fastest route to it is the advertising permit, because an APDL number CONTAINS the register code: a permit beginning 13619-5/ is Enlace Suites I and one beginning 13619-6/ is Enlace Suites II. Nine attributes differ between them and none of them is averaged on this page: units (438 against 290), storeys (43 against 33, both contradicted), the statutory price band (one clean set against two irreconcilable ones), the advertising permit, the DBKL building-plan approval, the approved extension (+18 against +12 months), the governing delivery date (15 September 2029 against 18 April 2030), the type schedule (twenty-one built-ups, not one of them shared), and the availability of imagery (Phase II is image-blocked except for its floor plans). The two share a licensee, a licence, a site, one 99-year lease with the same expiry, the same filed title restriction, the same approving authority, the same S1 plan zone and the same sales gallery — which is why they belong on one page — and the GreenRE row and the StarProperty award are both undifferentiated between them, so splitting them across two pages would have forced a guess on each. Get the register code in writing before you pay anything.

The developer, the licensee and the landowner — three different parties, and only one will sign

Every marketing surface on this project credits IJM Land: the group’s own website, the press, the portals and the award citation. The company that holds the KPKT developer licence, holds both advertising permits, filed all four statutory advertisements and will sign your sale and purchase agreement is AMONA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., registration 198701005155 (163826-A), KPKT developer code 13619, licence 13619/08-2027/1268(A) valid 20 August 2022 to 19 August 2027. That distinction is not pedantry: IJM Land’s own joint-venture vehicle, Murni Lapisan Sdn Bhd, holds no KPKT developer licence at all, and a register search on the brand returns a DIFFERENT, unrelated licensee — IJM PROPERTIES SDN. BHD., code 8326, with thirty projects elsewhere. A client who checks “IJM Land” on TEDUH will find nothing for this project, and will find something for another one. The joint venture itself, given honestly: it was signed on 11 September 2012 between IJM Land, through Murni Lapisan Sdn Bhd, and Amona Development, on a 40:60 basis — and WHICH PARTY HOLDS 40 AND WHICH HOLDS 60 IS NOT PUBLISHED. One publisher lists the IJM vehicle first and does not say that this makes it the 40; this page does not infer it from the order. The licensee’s own shareholding appears nowhere, including in the one group corporate-structure document this research could fetch. And the landowner is the CITY. Amona Development holds a privatisation agreement with the Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur for the residential and commercial development of about 57.82 acres, with a reported RM331 million to RM391 million payment to the Datuk Bandar for the project land value and a minimum guaranteed profit, plus a 20% share of the excess over that minimum, both parties funding development costs in the 40:60 proportion. Say exactly what that is, because the words invite a misreading: it is a DEVELOPER-TO-LANDOWNER LAND PAYMENT TERM from a 2012 privatisation agreement, reported by a newspaper. It is not offered to purchasers, it is not a leaseback, it is not a guaranteed rental return and it is not a buyer inducement of any kind. What it DOES explain is the whole of the tenure: a 99-year lease expiring 5 September 2123 on land the city owns, a filed restriction requiring State Authority consent for any transfer, lease or charge, and DBKL sitting as both the landowner’s representative and the building-plan approving authority. Nobody else explains this, and it is the most useful piece of context a buyer can have about this title. Not one consultant, architect, engineer, quantity surveyor or contractor is named in any of the four filed documents — the only parties named in them are Amona Development, Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur and Jabatan Perumahan Negara — and no mybina record, Bursa contract announcement or quantity-surveyor publication was found for either phase. The group has its own construction arm, so a self-awarded contract is the obvious explanation, but no document says so and this page does not assert it. The consequence is concrete: with no commencement date, the contractor-programme float test cannot be run in either direction.

The delivery record of licence 13619 — thin, and published as thin

Three of the six registrations on this licence are complete, and the record they make is less flattering than a township page usually gets. It is published here as the position rather than as a selling point. 13619-1 (Inwood Residences): first SPA 10 March 2015, original contractual date 10 March 2018, a +12-month extension to 10 March 2019, CCC 8 March 2019 — TWO DAYS inside the revised date and about 363 days past the original. 13619-2 (Secoya Residences): first SPA 29 June 2015, original 29 June 2018, +12 to 29 June 2019, CCC 26 June 2019 — THREE DAYS inside the revised date and about 362 days past the original. 13619-3 (the township’s affordable phase): UNSCORABLE, because no first-SPA date is filed, so there is no date to measure against; its CCC is 14 August 2020. So two of two scorable completed phases were delivered inside their GOVERNING date, and that counts. But both needed a full twelve-month extension to get there, neither cleared the revised date by more than 72 hours, and both landed about a year past the date their first buyers originally contracted for. On this licence, no phase has ever beaten an original contractual date and no phase has ever been delivered without an extension. Other licences in this series do better: one township delivered 13 of 13 inside the governing date with eight of them inside the ORIGINAL and no extension at all, and another delivered 6 of 6 inside the original. This is the weakest completed-phase record of any multi-phase licence this series has read. Two further facts belong beside it. First, vp: “-” on all three completed records, so NO handover date is recorded for any of them and the CCC is the only measurable event. Second, 13619-4 (Riana Trees Residences, 336 units) is live right now at 90.80%, 205 days past its OWN original contractual date with about 5.4 months of its extension left — which is the nearest thing to a forward indicator this licence offers, and it is a caution rather than a comfort. And one more, kept carefully separate: 13619-1 ran three unpermitted intervals — 45 days, 3 days and 9 days — and because its first SPA was 10 March 2015, every one of them fell DURING its selling period rather than before the first sale, which is the more serious of the two shapes. That is a DIFFERENT REGISTERED SCHEME, completed and CCC’d in March 2019, and it is recorded here as developer-conduct context attributed to that registration. NEITHER ENLACE REGISTRATION HAS AN UNPERMITTED INTERVAL: permit 1 pre-dates SPA 1 on both, by 79 and 18 days, and Rekod Lesen Terdahulu is empty of prior permits on both. Nothing from the sibling bleeds onto these two.

Green and awards, stated exactly — and the decoys refused by name

There is ONE real green row and it belongs to this project: Enlace Suite · GOLD · PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION · tool RES v3.3 · certified 10 June 2025 · developer Amona Development Sdn Bhd · status ACTIVE, expiry “1 year after CCC”, gallery: no image. Three things make it worth trusting: it is RESIDENTIAL, because RES and not NRB is the tool code; it is certified to the EXACT LEGAL NAME of the licensee rather than to a brand, a parent or a joint-venture vehicle; and it is read off the Gold tier table at a position well inside the reachable portion, so it is a positive read and not an inference from an absence. Three things limit it. It is PROVISIONAL, not final — a design-stage assessment whose own expiry field says one year after CCC, so it has not been tested against a built building, and this page writes “provisional” every time. The row is held as Enlace Suite, SINGULAR, with no numeral, and the register does not say which phase. And the only evidence of which phase is the DATE: 10 June 2025 falls after Phase I’s permit (26 December 2024) and its first SPA (15 March 2025), and nine and a half months BEFORE Phase II’s permit and ten months before its first SPA. So it is PROBABLY Enlace Suites I, stated as probable, and there is no GreenRE row for Enlace Suites II at all. And the most seductive decoy in this series sits two rows away, on the same register, under the same licensee: Enlace CO I (Gold, PROVISIONAL, NRB v3.2, 3 March 2026) and Enlace CO II (Gold, PROVISIONAL, NRB v3.2, 3 February 2026). Same licensee, same precinct, same brand word, same tier, same status, same certifier — and the ONLY thing separating them from the homes is NRB v3.2 against RES v3.3 in the tools column. They are the adjoining OFFICE towers, they hold no KPKT housing registration of any kind, and neither of their certificates has anything to do with either Enlace Suites registration. They are useful twice over, though: they independently prove the two office towers are designed and moving, and they corroborate from a third party that the offices are non-residential and the Suites are residential. One more green row in this township, refused: a completed sibling phase carries a FINAL certification on RES v1.2 from 2020 — and it is certified to Murni Lapisan Sdn Bhd, the joint-venture partner’s company, not to the licensee. Nothing about it migrates: not the rating, not the FINAL status, not the six-generations-old tool version. The developer advertises NOTHING GREEN, anywhere — no logo, no rating claim, no “targeting” language, on any of its three websites or in any of the four filed advertisements. It holds a real Gold provisional and says nothing about it. Credit the restraint; there is no over-claim here to correct. GBI: the certified-buildings directory is unreachable on this series’ standing record, so the GBI position is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative. QLASSIC: none published for either registration, for any phase of this township, or anywhere on the group’s site — and it could not exist yet, because QLASSIC is a workmanship assessment on a completed building and both towers are at a 20.00% band. THE AWARD: The Skyline Award, StarProperty Awards 2026, Best High-Rise Residential Development, HONOURS, awarded to “Enlace Suites @ Pantai Sentral Park”. Three caveats. The citation carries NO NUMERAL, so it is PHASE-AMBIGUOUS; the award record’s own CMS date is 8 May 2026 and Enlace Suites II did not launch until 9 August 2026, so it almost certainly attaches to Phase I — stated as probable, and never let to cover Phase II, which has no award of its own. HONOURS is not WINNER: the developer’s own award pages carry all three StarProperty designations, so the ladder is visible and this page does not upgrade the word. And neither award surface is a complete register — the group’s awards page has a “load more” control and does not carry the two sibling awards below, while the township page carries those two and not this one. Three awards refused by name, and the worst of them shares this award’s exact title: The Proximity Award 2026 (Best Mixed Development, EXCELLENCE) went to Pantai Sentral Park, the 58-acre MASTERPLAN and not a tower — and it carries a HIGHER designation than this project’s own, which makes it the more tempting of the two to lead with. The Skyline Award 2020 (MERIT) went to Secoya Residences, a DIFFERENT registration, six years earlier, one designation lower — same award name, same awarding body, same township, same licensee, and printed on the very page a client will read after following the developer’s own link. And The Starter Home Award (Best Primary Home Development, EXCELLENCE) went to Suria Pantai, the township’s 896-unit affordable phase at a flat RM275,000 — an affordable-housing award that must never sit on a page whose statutory floor is RM783,600, and it carries the highest designation of the four, which is the inverse of what a reader would assume.

Density: 124.0 units per acre, computed on a press figure — and it UNDERSTATES

728 residential units on 5.87 acres is 124.0 units per acre, and every part of that sentence needs a label. First, the denominator is a PRESS figure and not a filed one. Keluasan Tanah is not printed in any of the four filed documents, and keluasan reads 0 mps on both register records — the ordinary “not filed” value, and NOT the built-up-in-square-metres trap this series has caught twelve times, because both records read zero. So no filed parcel area exists for Enlace Suites and no density figure can be derived from a statutory source at all. The one usable figure comes from a weekly cover story: Enlace Suites and Enlace CO together occupy 5.87 acres, within an Enlace precinct of 18.18 acres of which Enlace Retreat covers 7.8 and 4.51 are still in planning. That breakdown closes on its own stated total — 5.87 + 7.80 + 4.51 = 18.18 exactly — which is the only internal corroboration available for it, and it is recorded as such. Second, and this is the finding: THE DENOMINATOR ALSO CARRIES TWO OFFICE TOWERS. Enlace CO I (14 storeys, 135,000 sq ft offered for en bloc sale) and Enlace CO II (13 storeys, three boutique units) sit on the same 5.87 acres, and no source splits the parcel between the homes and the offices. Including non-residential land in the denominator UNDERSTATES the residential-only density, so 124.0 per acre is a FLOOR and the true figure is higher by an unknown amount. Third, it is a two-tower figure and there is no per-registration density to be had: no source publishes a parcel area for either phase separately. Seven other denominators were considered and refused: the township’s 58 or 57.82 acres, which carries fourteen parcels, 1,686 other licensed dwellings, two office towers, 108,000 sq ft of retail, a wellness precinct, a purpose-built expressway interchange and the township parks — and which is the BEST-CORROBORATED acreage on the job, agreeing to within 0.3% across three independent sources. Corroborating an acreage three ways is not permission to divide by it, and this page declines to. Also refused: the 18.18-acre precinct, Enlace Retreat’s 7.8 acres, the 4.51 unplanned acres, and BOTH figures for the adjacent forest reserve — which is a public reserve and not the project’s land in any case, and on which the developer contradicts itself and its own filed brochure: 200 acres in the filing and in one cover story, 252 acres on its own township site and in both launch reports. A 52-acre, 26% self-contradiction on a single figure, inside one group. And refused last: the whole licence’s 2,414 units against the whole township’s 58 acres, which is wrong twice over, because the acreage carries unlicensed commercial components whose units are not in the 2,414. An eighth figure is not a denominator at all and will be mistaken for one: the developer’s secondary microsite describes “the Enlace Suites site” as 18 acres, which is the PRECINCT figure attached to the PRODUCT name. One of the developer’s own two sites mislabels the precinct as the project. And the cross-checks that would settle it cannot be run: NO GFA is published for Enlace Suites, for Enlace CO or for the precinct by anybody, so the plot-ratio check is impossible, and a strata tower has no lot schedule to sum for a net-to-gross check.

The township a buyer is actually buying into — RM8.3 billion, 14 parcels, 2039–2040

This is the disclosure nobody makes, and it belongs beside the thing being sold. Pantai Sentral Park is a 58-acre, FOURTEEN-PARCEL township with a published GDV of RM8.3 billion and a published target of FULL COMPLETION IN 2039–2040. Four parcels are launched and ten are to go. Add up everything that has a name and a number on it: Inwood RM214m + Secoya RM308m + Suria Pantai RM246m + Riana Trees RM261m + Enlace Suites I RM430.4m + Enlace Suites II RM389.31m + Enlace CO RM318.4m = RM2,167m. Against RM8.3 billion, that is about 26.1%. So roughly three-quarters of this township’s value is in parcels that are not registered, not launched, not priced and not dated — and the published plan is thirteen more years of construction beside a handover in September 2029 or April 2030. Enlace Suites I and II together are 9.9% of the township and 21.0% of their own precinct. And four components sit on THIS project’s own 18.18-acre precinct holding NO KPKT registration of any kind: Enlace CO I (14 storeys, 135,000 sq ft for en bloc sale), Enlace CO II (13 storeys, three boutique office units), Enlace Shoppes (108,000 sq ft of retail, tenant memoranda signed per the developer’s own blog) and Enlace Retreat (a wellness precinct on 7.8 acres, with no unit count published by anybody) — plus 4.51 acres the developer itself describes as still in planning. State the consequence plainly, because no source does: those four components carry no Schedule H, no HDA liquidated-damages formula, no section 7A housing development account, no statutory defect liability period and no filed advertisement, so their delivery dates are unknowable — and the two office towers already hold provisional green certificates, which means they are designed and moving. Anyone buying a Suite is buying beside live construction on them. One dated promise is worth re-checking rather than repeating: the developer said in August 2026 that Enlace Urban Park was “scheduled for completion by the end of the year”, which leaves about 2.5 months to run as at today. And one forward disclosure, recorded because it is on the record: the group’s chief executive has publicly said a further residential project with larger units will launch in 2027, opposite the Enlace integrated development and beside Urban Park. There is no 13619-7 on the register today — the walk ends at 13619-6 and the register’s own project count agrees.

Foreign buyers — the Kuala Lumpur floor is RM1,000,000, and the count CANNOT BE DETERMINED

This is a FEDERAL TERRITORY, not Selangor, and the threshold is different. No Selangor zone figure has any bearing on this page. The Kuala Lumpur floor is RM1,000,000, the same figure for strata and for landed property — the federal floor under the Ministry of Economy’s Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah, effective 13 July 2022, with consent going through the EPU rather than a state authority because Kuala Lumpur is a federal territory. Two independent sources give the same figure, one of them this agency’s own group guide, and both print the same caveat: thresholds change, so confirm with a solicitor and with the EPU before relying on it. Both filed bands STRADDLE the floor. 13619-5 runs RM783,600 to RM2,321,800, so its minimum is 78.36% of the floor and its maximum is 2.32 times it. 13619-6 as FILED runs RM627,000 to RM3,496,800 (62.70% and 3.50 times), and per the register and the developer’s panel RM758,400 to RM3,808,800 (75.84% and 3.81 times). So: the cheapest unit in either phase does NOT clear the floor, which means this is not a project a foreign buyer can enter at the bottom of the price list; and the dearest units in both phases clear it comfortably. HOW MANY OF THE 728 UNITS CLEAR IT IS UNDETERMINABLE, and it must be said in those words, because NO per-unit or per-type price is filed by anybody — not in either brochure, not in the newspaper advertisement, not in the register’s component rows, not on the developer’s panel and not on any portal. This page does not estimate it, does not derive it from a price per square foot and does not interpolate across the band. What can be said is an ordering by SIZE, and it is labelled as such rather than offered as a price finding: by filed built-up, the types most likely to clear are Phase I’s F (1,561 sq ft, 37 units), G (Taman) (1,302, one unit) and H (Taman) (1,733, one unit), and Phase II’s E (1,593, 20 units), RG1 (1,862, two), RG2 (2,034, four), G3 (1,593, three) and D2 (1,485, 30). AND NOW THE DECISIVE POINT, WHICH THE PRICE ANSWER ALONE WOULD HIDE: the filed Sekatan Kepentingan bars a foreign purchase REGARDLESS OF PRICE until consent is given. Both filings carry the same clause, quoted verbatim above in its negative polarity: the land may not be transferred, leased or charged without the consent of the State Authority. On this series’ own evidence that is the strongest single bar signal a filed advertisement carries, and here it compounds with the EPU consent a foreign acquisition in a federal territory needs anyway. So “the dearest units clear the floor” must never be read as “a foreigner can buy one”. One further practical constraint on what is actually available: the press reported in August 2026 that the non-quota units in Phase I are sold, so the remaining Phase I stock is quota stock. That is a statement about availability and it is published as one. And on the other side of the ledger: there is NO affordable-housing allocation on either Enlace registration, checked four ways — the words RUMAWIP, Residensi Wilayah and Harga Mampu Milik appear nowhere in either filed advertisement, each register record carries one component row with one band rather than two, there is no -RMM or -AH type-code pair, and no built-up is duplicated at two prices. So there is no second, state-controlled price bar here and the filed statutory minima ARE the open-market floors. The township’s affordable allocation exists and it is a SEPARATE, COMPLETED registration: 13619-3 Residensi Suria Pantai, 896 units in a 35-storey block, Type A 810 sq ft, 3 bedrooms / 2 bathrooms, at a flat RM275,000, on Lot 481324 Mukim Kuala Lumpur, CCC 14 August 2020, applications closed since 16 April 2022, published on the Federal Territories’ own register, whose programme cap is RM300,000 per unit. That RM275,000 is a STATE-CONTROLLED STATUTORY PRICE for a completed, handed-over, application-closed sibling scheme, and it is published here as exactly that — never as an entry price, a “from” price or a comparison for anything in Enlace Suites. It is 28.2% of Phase II’s filed minimum and 35.1% of Phase I’s. The two products share a licensee, a township and a postcode and nothing else. NEITHER ENLACE PHASE CARRIES ONE.

What this page does not publish, and why

This agency has one absolute compliance instruction and this page applies it literally. No discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion information, no incentive-package detail and no commission information appears anywhere on this page, from any source and whatever its provenance — and those six terms appear exactly once each on this page, here in this sentence, and nowhere else. A seventh term is named here for completeness and also appears exactly once, here: Bumiputera. The ethnic-allocation field exists in all four filed documents on this project — both generations of both phases — and on both halves of the developer’s own statutory panel. Its EXISTENCE is recorded on this page, in the register block above, because a buyer is entitled to know the quota exists and that the remaining Phase I stock is quota stock. Its VALUE is withheld, was never written into this site’s working file, and was swept out of the image manifest too, which is why no brochure page image appears in the gallery: the filed brochures reproduce both the price table and that field. Now the specific figures this page refuses, named so that you know they exist and know why you are not reading them here. Five below-minimum “price from” families circulate on this project and all five are withheld in full. One sits on the group’s own project page, roughly 44% below 13619-5’s filed statutory minimum of RM783,600 — and it is repeated verbatim by an aggregator and by a portal, both of which scrape that page, so it is EFFECTIVELY ONE SOURCE AND NOT THREE; two independent attempts to derive a price per square foot from it, on those same two sites, both fail to reproduce it against their own stated built-ups, which marks it as a data-entry artefact rather than a real price — and it stays withheld regardless. Six per-bedroom “from” figures sit on the developer’s secondary microsite, the lowest below BOTH phases’ filed minima, and the set cannot even be assigned to a phase because that site merges the two type schedules. One publisher’s launch figures for Enlace Suites II sit below that registration’s own filed minimum of RM627,000 — and they are carried by exactly ONE publisher: four other outlets reported the same launch on the same day and published no price at all, which makes it a weaker finding than a multi-publisher one and it is published as such. And one portal’s derived price-per-square-foot range is spliced from that same below-minimum figure against an unfiled built-up. What this page publishes instead is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price band for each registration, labelled as such, together with the fact that 13619-6’s band exists in two irreconcilable versions — and nothing else. And the clean half, which deserves saying as plainly as the faults: across fifteen surfaces read — developer, filing, register, press, portals and agent sites — this project carries NO adjusted or reduced price of any kind, NO leaseback, NO guaranteed rental return, NO yield projection, NO return-on-investment projection and NO freebie or inducement package of any kind. Nothing had to be swept out of this page except the one value above. That is a rare and genuinely clean outcome and it is stated as one. One figure on this project looks like a return and is not, and the page says which it is in the same breath: the RM331 million to RM391 million payment to the Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur “for the project land value and the minimum guaranteed profit”, plus a 20% share of the excess over that minimum, reported by a newspaper in September 2012. It is a DEVELOPER-TO-LANDOWNER LAND PRIVATISATION PAYMENT TERM. It is not offered to purchasers, it is not a rental guarantee and it is not a leaseback. Likewise the state-controlled RM275,000 on the completed sibling registration is a statutory affordable-housing price for a different, handed-over scheme whose applications closed in April 2022 — it is never an entry price for anything here. And the one price this agency will give you, on request and in writing, is the sale and purchase agreement price (合同价) — so that anything beyond it is a conversation with Louis and not a number on a web page.

Not published, therefore not on this page

The short, blunt list, and it is what Louis will go and ask the developer for. NOT PRINTED ANYWHERE, BY ANY SOURCE: a price for any individual type or unit, in either phase, on any surface — band only, everywhere; the land area of the Enlace Suites parcel, so no density can be derived from a statutory figure; the GFA and the plot ratio, so the density cannot be cross-checked; the lot or PT number of this parcel; the number of blocks per registration; the chargee, Tiada on six surfaces with no bank named by anybody; the main contractor, the architect, the engineer, the quantity surveyor and the contract sum, with no mybina or Bursa record found, so no commencement date and no float test; the authoritative storey count on either phase; the fit-out specification behind “fully fitted and partially furnished”; the service charge and sinking fund rates; the joint-venture share allocation and the licensee’s own shareholding; the prior developer licence number, because the register prints only the current licence and permits from 2014 prove an earlier one existed; Baki Unit for 13619-6; a floor-plan level range for 13619-5; a ceiling height, a floor finish or a fit-out itemisation for any type; the block or tower each type sits in; the delivery dates, unit counts, prices and HDA status of Enlace CO I, Enlace CO II, Enlace Shoppes and Enlace Retreat; what will be built on the township’s remaining ten parcels and when; the shuttle services’ routes, frequency, cost and start date; and whether the MRT3 station and its pedestrian bridge will be built, and when. NOT PRINTED IN THE FILINGS BUT RECOVERABLE, and the page says from where: the advertising permits and their validity, from the register and the developer’s panel; Bilangan Tingkat, from the register only; the per-type unit counts, from the developer’s panel only; the mukim, from the Federal Territories’ own register for the sibling registration; and the approved extension and the original contractual date, from the register ONLY. CANNOT BE READ — a weaker statement than “not published”, and kept distinct from it: Sinki Dapur per type. Phase II’s filed fixture schedule DOES contain a sanitary table with a Sinki & Pili row, but its column headers are missing from the extractable text, so no count can be tied to a type — and that is the only testable support for the dual-key claim the developer makes about Phase II’s C2. The test is UNAVAILABLE, not failed and not unsupported, and this page uses the weaker phrase because it is the true one. Phase I’s filing has no equivalent schedule in its extractable text at all. AND ONE DISTINCTION THAT CARRIES THE WHOLE PAGE: which phase the GreenRE Gold provisional and The Skyline Award belong to is NOT STATED by either citation. Two of this project’s three strongest third-party credentials are undifferentiated between the two registrations the Atlas folder names, and the dating makes Phase I probable for both. Probable is the word this page uses.

Questions a buyer should ask about Enlace Suites, answered from the register

Also worth reading, for contrast and for context

Published 14 October 2026 · last verified against the KPKT TEDUH register, four filed statutory advertisements on KPKT HIMS, the Federal Territories’ Residensi Wilayah register, the GreenRE Gold tier table and its certification-entry list, and the developer’s own three websites on 14 October 2026 · marketing information, not an offer. Every absence on this page was established by reading a register with a same-session positive control, and the walk of this licence was run to its end — 13619-7 returns a 404 and the register’s own project count agrees.