Park Green Pavilion @ Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur — all 453 units on Jadual H, registered as Pavilion Bukit Jalil under one KPKT code, 30667-1

Why this page reads differently from the brochure

Six things decide a purchase here. One of them is unusually good news, and the other five are on documents a buyer can check without anyone’s permission.

The six marketed types against the nine filed layout rows

Every marketed built-up matches the filed statutory schedule to the square foot. Nothing else about the marketed table matches the filing, and this panel prints all three disagreements. The filing carries NINE type rows across two blocks; the marketing carries SIX. Filed B (34 units, Blok B) and filed B1 (35 units, Blok A) are both 1,408 sq ft and the marketing collapses them into one “Type B”. Type A exists only in Blok B; types D and F only in Blok A — and no marketing surface says so, which means a buyer choosing a layout is also choosing a block without being told. Areas are filed in square feet (k.p.s.) only. No square-metre conversion of ours appears, and the filing does not state whether the built-ups are gross or net. No price per type is filed by anybody, so no figure is attached to any type on this page.

Type A — 1,201 sq ft, Blok B only

1,201 k.p.s. filed · 139 units, the largest single type in the scheme · marketed as 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms

1,201 sq ft filedBlok B only139 units3 bed marketedalso marketed as A (M)

Type A layout plan, 1,201 sq ft, Block B. The developer’s own plan. Filed as Jenis A, 1,201 k.p.s., 139 units, in Blok B and nowhere else — the filed schedule and the developer’s own reprint of it agree exactly. The marketing also lists a Type A (M). The “(M)” suffix appears on no filed surface and is explained on no page read, so this page does not guess what it means. This is the type on which the developer publishes an entry figure BELOW its own filed statutory minimum. That figure is not reproduced here — see what this page does not publish, below.

Ask for the Type A plan and its filed layout code

Type B — 1,408 sq ft, and the filing has TWO of them

1,408 k.p.s. filed twice · B 34 units in Blok B and B1 35 units in Blok A · marketed as 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms

1,408 sq ft filedfiled as B and B134 + 35 = 69 unitstwo different blocks

Type B layout plan, 1,408 sq ft. The filing records both a Type B and a Type B1 at this size; this plan does not say which it is. The developer’s own plan. This is the ambiguity that matters most in this panel. The filed schedule has Jenis B at 1,408 k.p.s. with 34 units in Blok B, and Jenis B1 at the same 1,408 k.p.s. with 35 units in Blok A. The marketed table has no B1 at all, and the filing has no plain B in Blok A. So a buyer told “Type B” does not yet know which block, which filed layout code or which of the two unit counts applies to them. Get the filed code in writing before you sign.

Is my Type B the filed B or the filed B1?

Type C — 1,485 sq ft, both blocks

1,485 k.p.s. filed · 35 units in Blok A + 35 in Blok B = 70 · marketed as 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms

1,485 sq ft filedboth blocks35 + 35 = 70 units3 bed marketed

Type C layout plan, 1,485 sq ft, both blocks. The developer’s own plan. The only type filed at the same count in both blocks — 35 and 35 — and the one type on which the filing, the developer’s statutory footer and the marketed table agree on every field they share. What differs between the Blok A unit and the Blok B unit at the same 1,485 sq ft is NOT PUBLISHED: not the orientation, not the stack, not the floor range, and not the balcony area, which no source separates from the built-up for any type here.

Which block is this Type C in?

Type D — 1,501 sq ft, Blok A only

1,501 k.p.s. filed · 70 units, all in Blok A · marketed as 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms

1,501 sq ft filedBlok A only70 units3 bed marketedalso marketed as D (M)

Type D layout plan, 1,501 sq ft, Block A. The developer’s own plan. Filed as Jenis D with 70 units, the joint-largest type count in Blok A, and it does not exist in Blok B at all. The marketing also lists a Type D (M); as with A (M), the suffix appears on no filed surface and is explained nowhere, so no meaning is asserted for it here. Whether the 70 units are a single stack or two is not published.

What does the (M) on Type D mean?

Type E — 1,905 sq ft, the largest filed layout

1,905 k.p.s. filed · 35 units in Blok A + 35 in Blok B = 70 · bedroom count DISPUTED by the developer’s own two documents

1,905 sq ft filedboth blocks35 + 35 = 70 unitsbed count DISPUTEDlargest filed built-up

Type E layout plan, 1,905 sq ft, both blocks. The developer’s website and its own e-brochure give different bedroom counts for this type. The developer’s own plan. The developer’s website says three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The developer’s own e-brochure says four bedrooms and three bathrooms. The register says only that SOME type in this scheme is bilik: 4 / bilik air: 3 — it does not say which. This page prints the disagreement and adopts neither side. On built-up alone, 1,905 sq ft is the largest filed layout, which makes the e-brochure the more plausible reading — and “more plausible” is not a source, so it is not published as the answer.

Is Type E the 3-bed or the 4-bed?

Type F — 1,627 sq ft, Blok A only

1,627 k.p.s. filed · 35 units, all in Blok A · bedroom count DISPUTED — the exact inverse of Type E

1,627 sq ft filedBlok A only35 unitsbed count DISPUTEDinverse of the Type E dispute

Type F layout plan, 1,627 sq ft, Block A. The developer’s website and its own e-brochure give different bedroom counts for this type. The developer’s own plan. Here the two developer surfaces swap sides: the website makes Type F the four-bedroom with three bathrooms, and the e-brochure makes it the three-bedroom with two. The two contradictions are a matched pair, which is what makes them a genuine internal contradiction rather than a typing slip on one page: whichever document is right about E is wrong about F. Filed as Jenis F, 1,627 k.p.s., 35 units, Blok A only.

Is Type F the 3-bed or the 4-bed?

These six line drawings are the ONLY images on this page, and that is deliberate. There is no render, no facade image and no facility image anywhere on this page. Nine gallery renders published on the marketing microsite were examined and DECLINED: every one has empty alt text, an empty caption, no adjacent label and a generic file title, so no subject could be established for any of them and an obvious-looking guess is still a guess. Both facilities plans were declined on size — 898 × 547 and 890 × 572 pixels — even though their printed captions are good, because a plan that cannot be read is a plan that cannot be captioned honestly. One file presented under a “Site Floor Plan” label contradicts its own filename and was refused on that ground alone. And the host these images come from is a recycled WordPress install carrying FOUR different projects’ media on one server: Type-A.jpg exists three times under three different date folders, two of them belonging to other developers’ projects, and another project’s immaculately titled pool and gym photographs sit in the same library. So each of these six was picked by its FULL path including the date folder, never by filename, never by subject search and never by CMS title alone. No image on this page has been taken from a neighbouring project, from the shopping mall, or from another project by this group.

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.

Where Park Green Pavilion @ Bukit Jalil is, and what is honest to say about getting there

Read the rail line first, because it is the most important thing this section can tell you: no source publishes a distance to any rail station for this project. The developer’s own location page and the marketing microsite’s location page name no station at all. The only transport either of them names is road — MEX, KESAS and the Bukit Jalil Highway. So this page publishes no station, no distance and no walking time, and it does not estimate one. A neighbouring Bukit Jalil project on a DIFFERENT land title does have a published LRT walking distance. It is not borrowed here, because a distance belongs to a parcel and not to a locality — and on this same street a portal has already been caught attaching one project’s figure to another’s title. Every distance below is the developer’s own published figure. The developer’s site and the marketing microsite publish the SAME set of figures, so they are treated as one developer-side set and not as two sources corroborating each other. Not one was estimated here, and not one was borrowed from another page on this site.

KPKT register: Pavilion Bukit Jalil, project code 30667-1, licensee REGAL PATH SDN. BHD.

Three statutory surfaces can be read against each other on this project: the KPKT TEDUH register, the KPKT-filed statutory advertisement, and the developer’s own site-wide statutory footer. Almost everything they share agrees — the licensee, the company number, the licence number and dates, the permit dates, the building type, the authority, the plan approval, the freehold tenure, the nil encumbrance, 210 + 243 = 453 units and the whole filed layout schedule. Three things do NOT agree, and all three are printed below as disagreements rather than resolved into one tidy number: Blok A’s price maximum, the licence and permit suffix, and whether a restriction in interest exists on the title. Each cell quotes its own source. A filed value says “filed”; a register value quotes its own key; a developer value says so. Where a surface prints nothing, the cell says NOT PRINTED.

The Blok A disagreement, stated plainly and left open. The filed brochure and the developer’s own live statutory footer both print RM2,566,670 as Blok A’s maximum. The KPKT registry prints RM2,960,470.00. The minima are identical on all three surfaces, and Blok B matches to the sen on all three — so one component is a perfect three-way match and the other is not, which is the whole point. Two standard explanations were TESTED and each one FAILS. A Baki Unit effect, where remaining stock lifts a band, raises a MINIMUM and never a maximum — and the minima here are identical, while bakiUnit is not present in the record at all. A registry band spliced across two permit generations cannot apply either, because lesen_records holds one permit number under two suffixes with identical dates and rekodLesenTerdahulu is absent — there is only ONE generation. The surviving hypothesis is that the developer’s panel is a generation behind: the register’s iklan link points at a LATER filing, dated 3 March 2026, which is image-only with no text layer and could not be read. That is PLAUSIBLE and UNVERIFIED, so it is printed as a contradiction and not as a conclusion. Both tests were run, both failed, and saying so is more useful to a buyer than a guess. The document that would close it is a readable text layer for that March 2026 filing.

Both price bands above are statutory and public: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum from the legally filed advertisement particulars, and the KPKT public registry band. Each is labelled with its surface. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and they are per block rather than per unit. Registers, the filed advertisement, the developer’s statutory footer, the GreenRE public register and the Residensi Wilayah register were all read on 15 October 2026.

All 453 units are Schedule H homes — the cleanest finding on this project

This is worth stating as a fact before anything else on the page, because it is the finding a buyer can rely on most. There is ONE developer licence, ONE registered project (30667-1), and two filed components. Both components are filed Pangsapuri Servis. Both are sold on Jadual H with tempohAsal 36 Bulan. The advertising and sales permit carries the -(S) strata tail. The licensee’s bilanganProjek is 1, and 30667-2 returns a client error. Put together, those five facts mean every one of the 453 units in Blok A and Blok B is an HDA-licensed home: the prescribed Schedule H contract, the housing development account, the liquidated-damages clause and the 24-month defect liability period apply to all of them. There is no SOHO, no office suite, no serviced-office parcel, no retail lot and no second registration on this licence to hold non-HDA stock in. On a 47-storey serviced apartment beside a shopping mall, that is not the normal answer, and this site has published pages where it was not the answer at all. The one thing the filing does NOT settle is the land-use category: no surface states whether the land is on a residential or a commercial title, and that is carried on this page’s not-published list rather than assumed either way.

The registered name is the mall next door — and how to check this project yourself

KPKT files this 453-unit, 47-storey serviced-apartment scheme under the name Pavilion Bukit Jalil. That is also the name of the 1.8-million-sq-ft retail mall immediately adjacent, built by the same group, which this project’s marketing leans on in almost every sentence. Two consequences follow, and both are practical. FIRST: a client who searches the register for “Park Green” finds NOTHING — those words appear in no KPKT field at all. SECOND: a client who searches for the registered name gets THIS CONDOMINIUM, and may believe they are looking at the mall’s record, or the reverse. So check it by code, not by name: developer code 30667, project code 30667-1, licence 30667/01-2029/0009(A), permit 30667-1/09-2027/0886(A)-(S). With those four you can repeat every statutory figure on this page. And note which public register carries which name, because it will look wrong otherwise: KPKT carries the mall’s name, while the GreenRE public register carries the marketing name Park Green Pavilion Bukit Jalil. The two registers cannot be reconciled by name at all — only by licensee. The brand word is no help either: a register search on “PAVILION” returns twelve licensees and this one is not among them, and a search on “MALTON” returns exactly one developer which is NOT this project’s licensee. The only developer string that reaches this licence is REGAL.

The permit position, and the placeholder in the filed brochure

The advertising and sales permit is 30667-1/09-2027/0886(A)-(S), valid 30 September 2024 to 29 September 2027, status Aktif — current today, with about eleven and a half months to run. There is only ONE permit generation on this registration: lesen_records holds the same permit number twice under two suffixes with identical dates, one Aktif and one Tidak Aktif, and rekodLesenTerdahulu is absent. So no unpermitted interval inside the selling period is even possible here. The filed advertisement is the complication, and it is an instructive one. It prints its own permit number as the literal placeholder XXXXX-X/XX-XXXX/XXXX (P) and its validity as XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. It files no permit number at all, because it is the PRE-LAUNCH filing, marked BAKAL DILANCARKAN. That does NOT make lapse unassessable, and this is the rule this page applies: where the advertisement files a placeholder but the register prints the real permit and the real dates, the lapse question is answered from the register. It is answered here, and the answer is NOT LAPSED. Never let a licence validity date stand in for a permit validity date: they are different instruments with different expiries, and on this project they are 20 months apart. One more register oddity worth knowing rather than worrying about: is_latest reads false on BOTH permit rows, so the array nominates no current record by itself. The Aktif / Tidak Aktif status is what distinguishes them, and this page publishes the Aktif one.

Four completion dates, and the approved extension only the register discloses

An 18-month extension of the delivery period has been APPROVED on this registration. That is the single most useful thing on this page that no marketing surface tells you. The register’s own fields: first sale and purchase agreement 15 October 2024; tempohAsal 36 Bulan, so the contractual vacant possession date was 15 October 2027; pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya; tempohTambahanDiluluskan +18 Bulan; new construction period 54 months; revised statutory vacant possession 15 April 2029. FOUR dates are in circulation and no two of them agree. The KPKT-filed advertisement prints Julai 2027. The register’s contractual date is 15 October 2027. The developer’s own live statutory footer says March 2029. The register’s revised statutory date is 15 April 2029. The marketing microsite publishes no completion date at all on the pages read. Credit where it is due: the developer’s own March 2029 is the only marketing surface anywhere near the truth, and it is still about a month earlier than the date that actually governs. And the discipline that matters: an approved extension is not automatically a delay. peratusSiap reads 40.00% and 40.54%, the status is Lancar, and ccc and vp both read - — so delivery has not been recorded at all, nothing here can honestly be called late or on time, and this page makes no prediction about the finish. The sentence that matters more than any of the four dates: the date that governs YOUR purchase is YOUR OWN agreement’s date plus the construction period written into it. The register’s 15 April 2029 is computed from the FIRST agreement on this registration, and a buyer signing in 2026 or 2027 gets their own clock. Ask for the construction period in your own draft agreement in writing.

Foreign buyers — the Federal Territory floor, and the second consent that sits on top of it

The threshold first, and it is derived rather than assumed. The approving authority is DBKL, named in words on two surfaces and corroborated by the plan-approval reference DBKL.JKB.BP S3 OSC 2023 2314 (20), which is printed character for character on both. DBKL has jurisdiction only inside the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, so the district follows from the plan number itself. For the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur the minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM1,000,000 per unit, under the Ministry of Economy guideline effective 13 July 2022, with consent through the federal process rather than a state authority because Kuala Lumpur is a federal territory; section 433B of the National Land Code (Act 828) is the statutory root. And here the arithmetic is unusually clean: the lowest filed statutory minimum anywhere in this scheme is RM1,344,450, so EVERY filed unit in both blocks sits above the RM1,000,000 floor. That is the inverse of several pages on this site, where not one unit reached the floor. But the threshold is not the whole question, and this page states the threshold without ever stating eligibility. A Sekatan Kepentingan IS printed on the filed brochure: the land may not be transferred, leased, charged or pledged without the approval of the Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. That is a SECOND and SEPARATE consent sitting on top of the price floor, and it is absent from the developer’s own live statutory footer, which prints only Land Encumbrances: Nil. So: clearing a price floor is not permission. Whether any particular foreign buyer may acquire any particular parcel here is a question for a Malaysian solicitor reading the actual title, and Louis will refer you to one rather than answer it. See Sekatan Kepentingan.

Build percentage — what 40% does and does not tell you

peratusSiap reads 40.00% on the 210-unit component and 40.54% on the 243-unit component, both Lancar. Those are the register’s figures, quoted and never computed from. ccc and vp are both empty. There is no Certificate of Completion and Compliance and no recorded handover, which is exactly what you would expect at 40% built. What 40% does NOT tell you is when the building finishes. No completion month is derived from a progress percentage anywhere on this page, and a reader should treat any site that does so with suspicion: construction progress is not linear and the register publishes no curve. What it does tell you is that this is a live new launch rather than completed stock, which is why the page is filed under the new-launch and serviced-apartment categories and not under subsales. How many of the 453 units remain unsold is NOT PUBLISHED by anybody: bakiUnit is absent from the register record, the filed brochure is a pre-launch document, and no developer surface publishes a remaining-stock count.

There is no controlled-price affordable parcel inside this scheme — checked properly

The answer is no, and it is established on the licensee rather than on a locality search. Regal Path Sdn. Bhd. has bilanganProjek: 1, 30667-2 does not exist, and both filed components of 30667-1 are market-priced Pangsapuri Servis whose filed minima are RM1,744,450 and RM1,344,450 — orders of magnitude above the RM300,000 ceiling the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register states. So there is no Residensi Wilayah parcel inside this scheme. There ARE such projects at Bukit Jalil, and they belong to other licensees: the GreenRE register carries one under a different developer entirely, and the Federal Territories’ register carries an 823-unit scheme whose applications are closed. Neighbours, not this product, and nothing from them has been read across. One methodological trap is worth recording because it would have produced a false negative: the affordable-housing register’s own location column is the PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY, not the locality, so a Bukit Jalil scheme can be filed under a different name entirely. “No Bukit Jalil row in that register” is therefore not a finding. Only the licensee test is, and it was run on KPKT where it is conclusive.

GreenRE Bronze is PROVISIONAL, and provisional is not certified

There is a genuine positive here and it belongs to this licensee: the GreenRE public register carries Park Green Pavilion Bukit Jalil in its BRONZE tier, dated 15 October 2024, category RES v3.3, issued to Regal Path Sdn Bhd itself. Nothing has been borrowed from a sibling project to produce it. Its status is PROVISIONAL, and this page never writes that as “certified”. A provisional GreenRE rating is a DESIGN-STAGE assessment. The final rating is assessed on the completed building, and at 40% built with no CCC there is no final rating and there cannot yet be one. Whether a final rating will follow is on this page’s not-published list. All four GreenRE tiers were read. Platinum, Gold and Silver hold no row for this project, this licensee, “Park Green”, “Regal” or “Malton” — and because those tier tables truncate, that is “no entry in the reachable portion” rather than a clean negative. It does not matter here, because the positive on Bronze is unambiguous. Two things deliberately NOT read across: a Platinum row about a kilometre away under a different licensee does not make this a Platinum area, and a Bronze row held by a company named on the developer’s own pages as the group’s founding entity belongs to a DIFFERENT project. No Green Building Index entry was sought or reached, so that is inconclusive and never stated as a negative. Neat coincidence, recorded as a coincidence and not as a claim: the provisional date, 15 October 2024, is the same day as the register’s first-agreement date. No source connects them.

Every award on the project’s own pages belongs to something else

The marketing microsite runs a section headed “Award-Winning Developer”. Read it carefully and every award in it is attributed, by that same page, to the SHOPPING MALL next door. A 2023 parenting-magazine readers’ award for best shopping mall for families: the mall. A 2024 FIABCI World Prix d’Excellence world gold in the RETAIL category: the mall. A 2023 FIABCI Malaysia Property Award in the RETAIL category: the mall. And the image files give away a fourth borrowing: the accolade pictures on that page are named after “The Park 2” — a different Malton project in Bukit Jalil altogether. Six further accolade images are unlabelled and attributable to nothing, and the developer’s own site shows four award logos with no rating, no year, no category and no project attached to any of them. So: Park Green Pavilion @ Bukit Jalil has won nothing that any surface can demonstrate. No award at project level was found anywhere. This page therefore refuses the words “award-winning” at project level, and it does not let a retail award for a neighbouring mall, or an award belonging to another project by the same group, read across to the homes you would be buying. A logo with no rating attached is not a rating.

Not published by anyone, therefore not on this page

This is the list Louis will go and ask the developer for in writing, rather than estimate. THIS PARCEL’S OWN LAND AREA, and therefore its density — the filing’s 50 ekar is the township, the marketing microsite’s 0.92 acres is unverified, and its own master-plan figure of 24.28 hectares is about 60 acres; the DBKL development order, the strata plan or a Bursa announcement naming the parcel would close it. Whether the land is on a residential or a COMMERCIAL title, which drives the utility tariff and the assessment rate on a serviced apartment. Which of Type E and Type F is the four-bedroom. The filed storey count and the filed car-park allocation — the register gives 47 storeys, and no filed surface gives either figure. Whether the register’s higher Blok A maximum is the live filed figure, which a readable text layer for the March 2026 filing would settle, and which is the single highest-value open item behind this page. Malton Berhad’s shareholding percentage in the licensee — which is exactly why this page says “a Malton Berhad company” and never “wholly-owned”. Any distance to any rail station, which nobody publishes and which this page will not estimate or borrow. The bridging financier, behind a filed Bebanan: Tiada that names no chargee. Whether the filed built-ups are gross or net — the filing says only k.p.s. and the disclaimer says “all measurements are approximates”. The street address and postcode as filed, since no filing prints a project address, lot or PT number. How many of the 453 units remain unsold, with bakiUnit absent from the record. Which block each facility serves; the lift count; the units per floor; the management and joint-management arrangements and the service-charge basis; the meaning of the (M) suffix on Types A and D; and the pedestrian bridge’s ownership, opening hours and whether access survives a change of mall ownership. Whether a final GreenRE rating will follow the provisional Bronze. And the main contractor, the consultants and the quantity surveyor, none of which is named by any source read.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction, applied here without exception: nothing from his agency’s project materials that adjusts a price may appear on a public page. So this page carries no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion or campaign figure, no freebie or purchase incentive, no commission, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, and no yield, return-on-investment or rental-return figure — in either language, and in the page’s structured data as well as in its text. What it DOES carry is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price band for each registered block and the KPKT public registry band for each registered component, each labelled as what it is, and always with this sentence attached: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Four specific withholdings on this project, each named by kind rather than hinted at. ONE: two separate surfaces publish an entry figure that sits BELOW the filed statutory minimum of RM1,344,450, and ONE OF THE TWO IS THE DEVELOPER’S OWN WEBSITE — on the same page whose own footer prints that minimum. The second is the marketing microsite, in its own type table. Both figures are withheld here. What is published is that the discrepancy exists, that it sits on two surfaces, and that those two surfaces were tested for independence — different hosts, different themes, and only one of them publishing any statutory disclosure at all — so they are genuinely two publishers rather than one figure counted twice. TWO: the entry pricing on this project is also package-conditional. The marketing microsite advertises a sales package updated through a messaging app, and carries a pricing-and-packages page that was deliberately NOT opened in the research behind this page. A figure that is both below the filed minimum and conditional on a package is doubly unpublishable, and asking Louis for the current filed band in writing is the only honest way to get a number. THREE: a price-concession field addressed to Bumiputera buyers EXISTS on two surfaces — the KPKT-filed brochure and the developer’s own live statutory footer. Its value is WITHHELD. The existence of the field is the finding, and naming its kind precisely matters: it is a price concession, not an ethnic-allocation quota and not a lot-title class. FOUR: the developer’s own image library holds ten items and every single one is a seasonal campaign creative; and a rendered page of a SALES KIT sits in the marketing microsite’s media library. None of the eleven is used on this page, none is described, and the sales-kit page was never opened. And one honest non-finding rather than a clean negative: whether either surface publishes a rental-return figure was never established, because every read of those hosts carried an instruction to exclude such figures. It makes no difference to this page, which may publish none either way — but “not established” and “does not exist” are different claims, and this page does not blur them.

Park Green Pavilion @ Bukit Jalil — frequently asked questions

Other Kuala Lumpur pages built the same way — and nothing crosses between them

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 · registers and filed documents read 15 October 2026. Sources: the public KPKT TEDUH register developer record reached through three developer-search strings against a same-session positive control, the project record for 30667-1 read three times, and 30667-2 confirmed non-existent; the KPKT-filed statutory advertisement — the readable PRE-LAUNCH filing, since the register’s own link points at a later filing that is image-only with no text layer; the developer’s own site-wide statutory footer and its parent’s corporate site; the marketing microsite’s location, facilities and developer pages; all four tiers of the GreenRE public register; and the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register, pages 1 and 2 of 10. NOT REACHED, and named rather than hidden: a readable text layer for the 3 March 2026 filing, which is the single highest-value open item behind this page; Malton Berhad’s audited annual report and corporate-structure chart, which is why no shareholding percentage appears; and the Green Building Index register, which is inconclusive and never stated as a negative. DELIBERATELY NOT OPENED: the marketing microsite’s pricing-and-packages page, and a rendered page of a sales kit sitting in its media library. Neither was read and nothing on this page comes from either. No figure, acreage, distance, rating, award or image on this page comes from any other development, any other licensee, any other project by this group, the shopping mall next door, or any neighbouring page on this site. · Six images, all of them the developer’s own layout plans, each selected by its full path including its date folder because the host is a recycled install carrying four projects’ media. There is no render, no facade image and no facility image on this page: nine uncaptioned gallery renders were declined for having no establishable subject, and both facilities plans were declined on size. · Marketing information, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the register, the filed advertisement, the title and a current valuation before you commit.