MTD Sutera Vista Residences, Taman Sutera, Kajang — 378 freehold Kondominium units on Jadual H, 20.00% built, and a filed price floor that is a government controlled price, not an open-market one

Four findings frame this page, and the first one is the paragraph no portal carries

None of these four is a selling point. Each is a documentary finding, and three of them come from reading the developer’s own filed document against the developer’s own marketing.

Three type codes for 378 units — the filed schedule, and the marketed one beside it

The filed advertisement files three type codes and nothing more: A and B together on one row, and C. No per-type unit count is filed, so how many A, how many B and how many C units exist is NOT PUBLISHED. No floor plan is published on the developer’s own host for any type, so there is no plan image on this page for any of them.

Every square-metre figure on this page is this page’s own conversion. The developer publishes square feet only and the filed advertisement prints kps (kaki persegi) only; no source publishes a metric built-up. The filed figures are the ones to hold the developer to, and the only document that will confirm the area, the type and the price of a specific unit is the price list read beside the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery.

Site progress, September 2026 — three frames under one published heading

All three captions are identical, and that is deliberate. The developer publishes these three photographs under one printed heading, “SITE PROGRESS - SEPTEMBER 2026”. A heading over a set establishes the set’s subject — construction progress at this project as at September 2026 — and nothing whatsoever about any individual frame. So no frame is captioned “the pool deck”, “the north elevation” or anything else a reader could mistake for a published fact. The identical caption is the honest outcome, not a shortcut. What the developer’s host does NOT carry, on any image: alternative text, a caption field, or a title that names a subject — every other asset in its library is titled with its own filename. Two further square images named layout exist on that host and are deliberately not reproduced here, because nothing published says whether they are a site layout or a unit layout, and captioning them would be a guess. No image on this page is a floor plan, a site plan or a facilities plan, and none is described as one.

Taman Sutera, Kajang, Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor

The project’s own lot number, street number and postcode as filed are NOT PRINTED — the filed advertisement carries no Lot / PT line and no mukim / daerah line, and the KPKT register prints a bare dash for daerah. So the district on this page is derived, and the derivation is set out leg by leg below rather than asserted. Every distance in the lists is a figure a named source publishes; no distance on this page is estimated, and the ones nobody publishes are listed as unpublished.

Registered as Residensi MTD Sutera Vista — KPKT registration 8483-10

This is the spine of the page. Every cell below is a field from the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for 8483-10 or from the advertisement the developer itself filed, and where those two disagree both values are printed and the disagreement is named. Six fields read NOT PRINTED and are printed as NOT PRINTED.

The filed statutory price range is the filed sale and purchase agreement range and it is the only price on this page. It is a legally filed particular, published here because it is public record and because it is the number a buyer can hold a developer to. It is not a price list, it is not a quotation and it is not an offer, and it tells you nothing about which specific unit sits at which point in the range. The KPKT register prints a higher minimum for this same registration with an identical maximum — a minimum raised with the maximum unchanged. Two explanations fit (remaining stock, or a registry band that excludes part of the affordable allocation) and this page adjudicates neither. It also does not print that second figure, because the house rule is to show the sale and purchase price and nothing else.

Read 21 October 2026. Licence and permit positions are dated statements, not permanent facts: the licence runs to 14 February 2028 and the permit to 26 February 2029 unless renewed. The register record, the filed advertisement reachable from it, the Selangor housing board’s controlled-price list of 10 September 2026, four GreenRE certification tiers and the developer’s own project page were all read on that date.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s own standing instruction governs this section and it is absolute: nothing taken from his agency’s project materials that is a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion or a commission is published on any page he owns, in either language, in the body or in the page’s structured data. Where a price is shown at all, it is the filed sale and purchase price and nothing else — so that anything beyond that is a conversation with a licensed agent holding the current price list, not a number scraped off a web page. On this project that rule costs the page almost nothing, because none of those things was found on any surface that was read — not on the developer’s site, not in the KPKT register, not in the filed advertisement, not on the Selangor housing board’s list, not in the press coverage and not on either portal record. No leaseback structure, no guaranteed-rental arrangement, no rental-return projection and no yield or ROI figure exists anywhere on this project, so there is none to describe and none to refuse: the absence was checked, and it is reported as an absence rather than left as a silence. One figure was read and is deliberately not recorded here: a portal publishes an estimated monthly repayment for this project. It is a portal’s calculator output resting on assumptions it does not publish, it is not a filed particular, and a mortgage figure on a page like this one reads as advice. It does not go on the page. The developer’s own listing card also carries a marketing “from” figure which sits above the filed statutory minimum — it was checked specifically for an asterisk, a footnote, a “terms apply” line or a site-wide disclaimer and carries none of them, which is a clean pass rather than a failure. It is still not the filed sale and purchase price, so it is not published here. And the Bumiputera question has its cleanest possible answer on this project: there is NO SUCH FIELD AT ALL in the filing. That is a different statement from a field that exists and is populated, a different statement from a unit quota, and a different statement again from a classification carried on the title of the land. Nothing is withheld here, because nothing exists to withhold. What the filing carries instead is the Sekatan Kepentingan block set out below, which is a restriction on dealing with the title and is not a price concession of any kind.

Rumah Selangorku — what the filed Sekatan Kepentingan block actually says

The filing prints TWO interest-restriction categories, and the fact that there are two is itself the evidence that this is a mixed building. Against Kediaman Bebas — open-market residential — the filed restriction reads Tiada: none. Against Rumah Selangorku the filing files a real set of conditions: any transfer, lease or charge requires the consent of the Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, the State Authority; a five-year transfer restriction runs from the date the transfer out of the developer is registered; and any further application inside those five years needs a letter of consent from the Lembaga Perumahan dan Hartanah Selangor, the state housing board. These are statutory restrictions a buyer must know about before signing, and they are recorded here in full for that reason. The eligibility rules that sit behind the affordable product — income caps, the prior-ownership test, compulsory registration and that same five-year moratorium — are published by the state housing board itself, at the end of its controlled-price document rather than the front of it. Rumah Selangorku stays in Malay on this page, in both languages, because it is the name of a Selangor state programme and not a descriptor. RUMAWIP does not apply and that is worth stating rather than leaving blank: RUMAWIP is a Federal Territory programme and this project is in Selangor. No PR1MA and no MyHome designation appears on any surface either.

Foreign buyer — Selangor Zone 1, and a clean total negative

Kajang is in Daerah Hulu Langat, and Hulu Langat is Selangor Zone 1, where the foreign-buyer floor is RM2,000,000 for strata and gated landed strata. The arithmetic is short: the filed statutory maximum is RM570,400, which is 28.52% of the floor. Not one of the 378 units clears it. The band does not straddle the threshold and the answer is not undeterminable — it is a clean, total negative, and this page states it plainly because the readers of a Chinese-language property page include overseas enquirers who deserve the answer before the enquiry. On top of the price floor, the Rumah Selangorku side of the building carries the State consent requirement and the five-year transfer restriction described above, which bind a Malaysian buyer too. And the expired window, named so nobody quotes it at you: the RM1,500,000 threshold from the 2020 circular applied for the 2020 calendar year only. It has expired and it is not current. For completeness, the neighbouring zones, because they are routinely confused: Zone 2 — Kuala Selangor and Kuala Langat — is also RM2,000,000; Zone 3, which is Hulu Selangor, is RM1,000,000; and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur is RM1,000,000 with EPU consent. Hulu Langat and Hulu Selangor are different districts in different zones, and this project is in the first of them.

The five names, and the one suffix this page will not print

Five renderings of this project’s name are in circulation and no two are identical. The filed advertisement files Residensi MTD Sutera Vista, which carries the brand. The KPKT register prints RESIDENSI SUTERA VISTA, which drops it. The developer markets MTD Sutera Vista Residence, singular. The press writes MTD Residensi Sutera Vista. One portal files it as Residensi Sutera Vista. The registered name and the marketing name differ by word order, by language and by number. A client running their own KPKT search will get the register’s form, so it is printed here beside the filed one. And the suffix this page refuses: the Selangor housing board’s controlled-price list files the scheme as RESIDENSI SUTERA VISTA (QUAD). That (QUAD) appears on that one surface and nowhere else, and no document anywhere defines it. It may be a block or an allocation designation. Because nothing defines it, it is not published here as part of the name. One more separation, because the names collide: this project has no relationship whatsoever to Sutera Suites @ KL City Gateway. They share one Malay word — sutera, silk — and nothing else: a different licensee, a different developer code, a different district, a different local authority, a different parent and a different product. The “Sutera” name is also heavily used in Johor, which is exactly why this page established the KPKT codes before it believed any name.

Construction progress, and the delivery clock in full

Register field peratus: 20.00%. Register field status.keseluruhan: Lancar. The status field is readable, so Lewat — late — was checked and is not flagged; that distinction matters, because a missing field and a field reading nil are not the same finding. tempohAsal: 36 Bulan. tarikhPjbPertama: 02 Jul 2026. serahKosongIkutPjb: 02 Jul 2029. pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak — no extension approved, tempohTambahanDiluluskan a dash, tempohPembinaanBaharu a dash. On the register’s own two numbers, roughly 3.7 of the 36 months had elapsed when 20% of the works was recorded, which is ahead of a straight line. That is an observation about two published fields and not a prediction about delivery. rekodLesenTerdahulu is not present for this registration and lesen_records holds one row only, the current permit — so there is no earlier permit generation to compare. The field is populated elsewhere on this licence (an early phase carries two expired prior records), which makes its absence here meaningful rather than merely empty. Four completion dates circulate: the filing’s own 01/03/2029, the register’s SPA-derived 02 Jul 2029, one portal’s 31 Mar 2029 and another portal’s bare 2029. The SPA-derived date is the one that binds, because under Schedule H the period runs from the date of each purchaser’s own agreement — so a buyer signing in 2027 has a later date than a buyer who signed in July 2026.

The township record on this one licence — and what must not be borrowed from it

Developer licence 8483 carries ten registrations. Nine of them are already complete — six at Siap Dengan CFO and three at Siap Dengan CCC — and this project is the tenth and the only one selling. The licensee’s register entry reads projek_sakit: 0, projek_terbengkalai: 0 and mempunyaiKesalahan: Tiada, with statusPemaju: Aktif. The nearest neighbour, Residensi Sutera 7 on registration 8483-9, took its CCC on 11 June 2021 at 100.00%, 392 units over 18 storeys, about 300 m away by filed coordinates. A register entry is not a clean bill of health, but ten registrations with nine completions is a great deal more than silence, and it is checkable. What this page will NOT borrow from the earlier phases. Their prices: the registry bands for the completed Taman Sutera phases range from the low tens of thousands on the oldest phase to well over two million ringgit on another, so no earlier phase characterises this one and none is used to imply a price here. Their images: no image from Camelia, Zen or Nusantara, Taman Sutera appears on this page. Their product type: Residensi Sutera 7 is filed as a Pangsapuri Servis while this project is filed as a Kondominium, and that is precisely how a serviced-apartment label could migrate 300 m onto the wrong project. And their sales: a March 2024 press caption saying about 90% of the serviced apartments in Taman Sutera had sold describes the sibling, not this project. No read-across, in any direction.

Density — the claim, the arithmetic, and the caveat on the denominator

The developer headlines “LOW DENSITY” on the same page that publishes the two numbers which refute it. 378 units over the 4.2-acre parcel the developer itself publishes is 90.0 units per acre. Ninety units an acre is not low density by any Malaysian measure, so the claim is refused here and the arithmetic is shown rather than asserted. The trap on the other side, named so nobody falls into it: dividing 378 by the 160-acre Taman Sutera master plan would give 2.4 units per acre, and that would be flatly wrong — the master plan is nine completed phases plus this one, not this project’s site. And the caveat that belongs with the figure: 4.2 acres is a developer-and-portal figure, not a filed one. The filed advertisement prints no Keluasan Tanah line at all. So the denominator is not statutory, the 90.0 is attributed arithmetic rather than a filed particular, and it is labelled that way every time it appears on this page. “ONLY 378 UNITS” is true as a count — 378 is the filed figure and the developer, the portal and the press all agree on it. But a count is not a density, and on that page it is doing density work.

Awards and green certification — nothing, and two refusals by name

This project has won nothing, and no source claims it has. The developer’s own awards page does not exist. What the press publishes instead is two awards that belong to other MTD developments: a PAM award in the multiple-residential low-rise category for Tanduk 5 Residency in Bangsar, and a Luxury Lifestyle Award for best luxury mixed-use development for One Crown Place in London. Both are refused here at project level, by name, and so is every “award-winning developer” formulation built on them. Green certification: a genuine clean negative, and it is stronger than the usual hedge. There is no entry for Residensi MTD Sutera Vista and none for MODAL EHSAN SDN. BHD. in the GreenRE Platinum register, which was read in full and ends cleanly at 95 rows without truncating, nor in the reachable portion of the Gold, Silver or Bronze registers, nor in the undated certification entry list. The truncation caveat does not bite on this project: the Bronze list reaches back to April 2024 while this project’s permit issued in February 2026, so the whole of its possible certification window sits inside the reachable range. And the counter-check was run: the developer publishes no certificate library, no GreenRE logo, no GBI claim, no Green Mark claim and no LEED claim on any surface. There is no alternative certification route to explain the zero with, so the zero is simply a zero. No QLASSIC score is published for this project either.

Not published, therefore not on this page — the full list

Each item below is a question a buyer would reasonably ask that no source read answers, paired with the document that would close it. This is the list to take to the sales gallery. How many of the 378 units are Rumah Selangorku and how many are open market — the most consequential gap on this project: the state housing board’s allocation letter for this scheme, or the permit’s own per-type unit schedule. The unit split between Blok A and Blok B: the filed Schedule H schedule, or the approved building plan. Per-type unit counts: the same two documents. The storey count as filed: nothing closes it from the filing, because the filing does not carry the field; the MPKJ building plan would. The total car park bay count: the MPKJ building plan. The lot or PT number, the mukim as filed, and the title particulars: a land search at PTG Selangor, or the MPKJ plan. The land area as filed: absent from the filing; 4.2 acres is a developer and portal figure. Bathrooms for types A and B: a legible copy of the filed advertisement. The architect, the C&S engineer and the main contractor: nothing publishes them. The group says it has a construction arm and does not name it, and the filing names nobody. A gross development value for this project alone: a company disclosure. The press figure of RM208 million is a combined figure for this phase and another phase together, it cannot be split, and it must not be attributed to this project alone. The maintenance or service charge per square foot and the sinking fund: published nowhere. The facilities level assignment or a podium plan: published nowhere — an icon row only. A distance to any of the four named highways, and to the nearest KTM station: published nowhere. Never estimate one. Whether Sungai Jernih (SBK33) is nearer than MRT Bukit Dukong: a measured distance from the operator or the developer. What (QUAD) means: a state housing board scheme document. Who controls the parent after its 2011 take-private: a company search at SSM. The listed-parent route is closed — the parent was listed on Bursa Malaysia in 1998 and taken private by its major shareholders in 2011, so there is no current annual report and no announcement stream to read. That route was tried, and it is shut, which is a different statement from not tried. The licensee’s registration number confirmed independently: a company search. 400238-T appears on the filed advertisement only; the KPKT register carries no registration-number field at all.

Questions a buyer actually asks — answered from the filed document

Also worth seeing — Selangor and the southern corridor

Published 21 October 2026 · last verified 21 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register record for 8483-10, the filed advertisement reachable from that record, the Selangor housing board’s controlled-price list of 10 September 2026, all four GreenRE certification tiers and the developer’s own project page. Marketing information, not an offer. The licence and permit positions are dated statements: the developer licence runs to 14 February 2028 and the advertising and sales permit to 26 February 2029 unless renewed.