Seri Embun @ City of Elmina (Elmina West), Shah Alam — registered Residensi Seri Embun on KPKT 31126-1: 360 three-storey Rumah Teres on Jadual H strata, freehold, vacant possession 1 May 2029 with NO approved extension — and the licensee is E&O, not Sime Darby

Six things about Seri Embun that nobody else will tell you

Each of these comes out of a primary document — the KPKT register, one of the two filed statutory advertisements, the GreenRE register, a listed contractor’s Bursa announcement, or the township vendor’s own press release.

The six filed types — and the schedule the marketing does not match

These six built-ups are the FILED statutory table, identical in both filed generations. Every marketing surface publishes a SMALLER range instead — 2,982 to 3,339 sq ft — and the two do not overlap at either end. On Type A specifically the filing says 3,482 and the portal attaches 3,339 to the developer’s own A tab. Neither range contains the other, the gap is not constant, and no source explains it. The filed table is what Schedule H attaches to, so the filed table is what this page publishes. No per-type unit count is published anywhere, no per-type price is filed (only two phase-level bands), and no car-park allocation is filed for any type.

The brochures render some type codes in lower case in places — a, b, b1 — while the portal’s tab set uses the upper-case codes. The upper-case set is treated as the codes here. One portal record prints a built-up of 37,466 sqft for a single type. That is roughly eleven times the filed maximum, it is garbage data, and it is refused by name so nothing scrapes it onto this page. That same record auto-generates an estimated monthly instalment; this page reproduces no instalment figure and no rate. No square-metre figure is published by the developer anywhere, so no conversion appears here.

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.

City of Elmina (Elmina West), Shah Alam — Daerah Petaling, Selangor

The register files this project’s coordinates as 3.185090, 101.501533 and its district as a bare dash. Every distance in the right-hand column below comes from ONE portal and nowhere else. Not one of them is the developer’s, and not one of them is ours. Nothing here is estimated.

KPKT TEDUH register 31126-1 and the TWO filed advertisements, side by side

This is the spine of the page, not a footnote. Everything in the row below is either the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for 31126-1 or one of the two filed statutory advertisements — and where they disagree, both values are in the cell. The register’s own iklan array lists only the NEWER filing. The older one sits on a different HIMS path form and was found by trying that form; it is unlisted, and it is the single most valuable document on this project because the diff between the two is where the land charge appears.

Read 21 October 2026: KPKT TEDUH 31126-1; the filed advertisement at hims.kpkt.gov.my/files/31126/P45/P45-20260413-00019012/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf; the UNLISTED earlier generation at hims.kpkt.gov.my/files/31126/31126-1/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf; all four GreenRE tiers; the Selangor housing board’s controlled-price list of 10 September 2026; Kerjaya Prospek Group Bhd’s Bursa announcement of 6 January 2025; and Sime Darby Property’s press release of 26 September 2013. No filed newspaper advertisement exists for this project — the IKLAN_AKHBAR path returns nothing — and no second brochure file exists either.

Every statutory figure on this page is dated, because a register is a live document. The licence, the permit, the completion percentage and the price bands were all read on 21 October 2026 and any of them can move. Ask Louis to re-read the register on the day you decide.

TWO filed generations of the same statutory advertisement — and the diff is the finding

The statutory advertisement for this project exists TWICE, on two different HIMS path forms, and the register lists only one of them. The newer one sits under the register’s own iklan array. The older one sits on the legacy path form and is not listed anywhere; it was found by trying that form. Both carry a complete statutory block, both print the same project name, the same licensee and company number, the same licence, the same approving authority and plan references, the same tenure, the same 360 units, the same Rumah Teres type, the same six-type area schedule and the same price bands to the sen. THREE FIELDS MOVED, and each of the three means something different. ONE. The advertising and sales permit went from a literal xxxxx placeholder, with its validity printed as xxxxx too, to the real 31126-1/01-2029/0013(N)-(S) valid 06/01/2026 to 05/01/2029. The earlier generation was published while the permit was still pending. So whether the permit is current could not have been assessed from that filing at all, and a page resting on it would have had to say so. It CAN be assessed from the newer one, and the answer is that it is current. TWO, and this is the one that changes a buyer’s position: Bebanan Tanah went from TIADA to Public Islamic Bank Berhad. The land was unencumbered when the first advertisement was filed and it is charged now. Nothing else publishes this. Only the diff between two filings reveals it, and the current state is the charge. THREE. The expected completion slipped a full year, Mac 2028 to Mac 2029, between two FILED advertisements — while the register records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak, i.e. NO approved extension of the statutory period. Both of those are true at once, and here is why: the statutory 36-month clock runs from the FIRST sale and purchase agreement, which the register dates 1 May 2026 — after the earlier advertisement was filed. So the brochure’s expectation moved without any extension of the statutory period. It is not a delay and it is not nothing, and this page says exactly that rather than picking one of the two.

Which source answered which question — and the questions neither answered

The register and the filings do not overlap the way a reader expects, and on this project the division is unusually informative. ONLY the filings have: the licensee’s registration number 338864-V; the approving authority in words; the two building-plan references; the tenure; the land-charge statement; the six-type area and bedroom schedule; the unit specification list, including the solar panels and the EV isolator switch; and the nearby-amenity categories. ONLY the register has: the storey count; the real permit number and its validity; the district field (filed as a dash); the statutory vacant-possession date and the first-agreement date; the delivery-extension field; the completion percentages by component; the price band split component-by-component; the coordinates; and the licensee’s offence flag. And the permit is the sharpest illustration on the whole project: the earlier filing prints it as a literal placeholder, so the question is unanswerable from that primary document and completely answerable from the register. This page names which source answered it rather than letting the two blur. NEITHER source has: the lot or PT number; the mukim; the land area; a car-park allocation; a communal facilities or common-property schedule; a Sekatan Kepentingan; the per-type unit counts; the phase-by-unit allocation; any per-type price; a maintenance charge; the strata share units; the architect, engineer or quantity surveyor; or any distance to anything.

The developer: E&O — and the three different Sime Darby roles, kept apart

The licensed developer, the party you sign a sale and purchase agreement with, is EASTERN & ORIENTAL EXPRESS SDN. BHD. (338864-V), KPKT developer code 31126. Three independent legs establish that it is an Eastern & Oriental group company, and all three point the same way, which is unusual enough to state: the licensee’s registered office and business address are character-for-character identical to E&O Berhad’s own published headquarters address; the business telephone number on the filed brochures is E&O Berhad’s own headquarters number, and the register carries the same number truncated; and the register’s e-mail and website fields are both on E&O’s own domain. And the closing leg comes from a party with a legal duty to get it right: Kerjaya Prospek Group Bhd’s Bursa announcement of 6 January 2025 names its employer as “Eastern & Oriental Express Sdn Bhd (E&OE), an indirect subsidiary of Eastern and Oriental Bhd”. Two news reports carry the same words. One caution, and it is the regulated filing’s own word: “indirect”. Nothing reachable names the intermediate holding company, and E&O publishes its group chart as a flat image with no text layer. So the existence of the chain is established and the chain itself is not. NOW THE SIME DARBY QUESTION, because every other page gets it wrong. Sime Darby Property is THREE things here and none of them is the developer of this scheme. It is the TOWNSHIP MASTER DEVELOPER — established by code, not asserted: SIME DARBY PROPERTY (CITY OF ELMINA) SDN. BHD., KPKT code 13017, with 51 registered projects, none of them this one. It is the LAND VENDOR — on its own 26 September 2013 press release, Sime Darby Elmina Development Sdn. Bhd. signed a memorandum of agreement to dispose of about 135 acres in Elmina West, part of City of Elmina, to Eastern & Oriental Berhad, following a 2011 collaborative agreement between the two groups. The price was “to be agreed later” and is not published. And it is the OWNER OF THE TOWNSHIP AMENITIES that a Seri Embun buyer will use — the Elmina Lakeside Mall at 1.4 km, the Elmina Central Park at 3.2 km, the Elmina Sakura Lake Garden at 4.9 km. This page names them as nearby amenities and labels every one of them as the township’s, because E&O did not build them. What follows from that, concretely: no Sime Darby award, no Sime Darby GreenRE rating, no Sime Darby acreage, no Sime Darby unit count and no Sime Darby superlative appears anywhere on this page. A landed Sime Darby scheme sits about 2.1 km away in the same township, in the same price band, holding two industry awards — and it is a different developer, a different licensee and a different product type. It is refused here by name. One further thing recorded and NOT published as current: the 2013 release states that Sime Darby Berhad was then E&O’s largest shareholder. That is a 2013 statement about a group structure that has since been demerged, nothing reachable establishes the position today, and it is not published here as a present fact.

Foreign buyers: both legs positive — the derivation, and the caveat that is not about price

This is the rare project in this belt where the answer comes out positive on BOTH legs, so here is the whole derivation rather than a conclusion. LEG ONE, THE TITLE QUESTION, which binds BEFORE price on landed property. In Selangor Zone 1, individual-title landed property is not available to foreign buyers; only strata and landed-strata forms are. Seri Embun is Schedule H with an advertising-permit tail of -(S) — strata. It is landed strata, which is the permitted form. That is why this project passes where its neighbours do not: comparables in our own files clear the price floor and then fail on individual title, or fail on price outright. LEG TWO, THE PRICE QUESTION, and it is completely positive. Daerah Petaling is Selangor Zone 1, where the published floor is RM2,000,000. The lowest filed price anywhere in the scheme is RM2,124,200 — the Fasa 1 minimum — so ALL 360 units in BOTH phases clear the floor, the cheapest of them by RM124,200, or 6.2%. There is no mixed outcome to explain and no type that fails. The zone table, used as a lookup and never from memory: Zone 1 is Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Klang at RM2,000,000; Zone 2 is Kuala Selangor and Kuala Langat at RM2,000,000; Zone 3 is Hulu Selangor at RM1,000,000; the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur is RM1,000,000 with Economic Planning Unit consent. The RM1,500,000 window some older material still quotes has EXPIRED and is not current. The zone figures rest on a three-source published consensus and not on a circular we could reach, so confirm with PTG Selangor in writing before you rely on any of it. THE CAVEAT, AND IT IS NOT ABOUT PRICE: the published Zone 1 landed-strata route is conditioned on the scheme being GATED AND GUARDED. A sponsored advertorial describes the enclave as gated and guarded with controlled access, and the portal gallery includes a render filed under a guardhouse name. NEITHER FILED BROCHURE MAKES ANY GATED-AND-GUARDED COMMITMENT, and neither prints a car-park allocation or a common-property schedule. So the security claim on which the eligibility route depends rests on PAID COPY AND A RENDER, not on a filed document. That is the one thing a foreign buyer here must get in writing, and the sale and purchase agreement or the approved layout plan is where it would be. And one more that is consistent rather than confirming: no Sekatan Kepentingan is printed in either filed generation. On other projects in this series a filed restriction barred foreign buyers regardless of price. Here there is none filed — which is consistent with eligibility but is NOT a filed confirmation of it. The issue document of title closes it. Laman Embun, the same developer’s shop-office precinct, is COMMERCIAL property and none of the above reaches it. Commercial acquisition by foreign buyers runs on a different consent regime entirely and this page publishes no figure for it.

The built-up contradiction — and why this page publishes the FILED schedule

FILED: 3,188 to 3,482 sq ft, across six type codes, identical in both filed generations. MARKETED, on every surface that publishes an area at all: 2,982 to 3,339 sq ft. The marketed range sits ENTIRELY BELOW the filed one. The marketed maximum is 143 sq ft, or 4.1%, below the filed maximum; the marketed minimum is 206 sq ft, or 6.5%, below the filed minimum. Neither range contains the other, and the gap is NOT a constant — so it is not a single accessory parcel added or removed across the board. On Type A the two figures are 143 sq ft apart on the same type code: the filing says 3,482 and a portal attaches 3,339 to the developer’s own A tab, using the same six codes as the filing. NOBODY RECONCILES IT. There are plausible readings — a different internal-area convention, a void treated differently, an accessory parcel counted in one and not the other — and every one of them is speculation, so none of them appears on this page as an explanation. THE RULE THIS PAGE FOLLOWS: publish the FILED schedule, attributed to the filed statutory table, and state in one line that the developer’s own marketing publishes a smaller range which the filing does not support. The filed table is what Schedule H attaches to. A built-up taken from narrative prose is not a statutory figure, and the smaller range is exactly that. One further arithmetic point that matters for counting sources: the two press surfaces carrying the smaller range publish the identical pair of numbers and read as one press pack from the same company. They count as ONE source, not two. And a figure refused by name so nothing scrapes it here: one portal record prints a built-up of 37,466 sqft, roughly ELEVEN TIMES the filed maximum. It is garbage data. The same record’s summary built-up fields are blank, and it auto-generates an estimated monthly instalment, which is a financing-derived number and is reproduced nowhere on this page.

Seven completion dates, the float test, and what “Lancar” actually means here

Seven figures sit on six surfaces, and only one of them binds your contract. THE ONE THAT BINDS: 1 May 2029 — the register’s tempohSerahKosong. 36 months on Schedule H from a first sale and purchase agreement of 1 May 2026, with pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak — no approved extension. THE OTHERS, each labelled: Mac 2029 on the current filed brochure, which is an expectation and not the statutory period; Mac 2028 on the earlier filed brochure, superseded; February 2029, a bare 2029 and 1 January 2029 on three portal records; and about March 2027 from the contractor’s own 26-month programme starting 20 January 2025 — which is a CONSTRUCTION programme, not a vacant-possession date, and the two are routinely confused. THE FLOAT TEST, RUN AS ELAPSED-AGAINST-BUILT, and no consumer source anywhere runs it. As at 21 October 2026, about 21 of the contract’s 26 months had elapsed — roughly 81% of the programme — against a register peratusSiap of 35.76% on the 185-unit component and 30.83% on the 175-unit component. The register nonetheless flags keseluruhan: Lancar, on track, on both components, and does NOT flag Lewat. BOTH HALVES HAVE TO BE SAID. The contractor’s own 26-month programme will not be met on those percentages. AND the statutory date that governs your Schedule H agreement is 1 May 2029 — two years and two months after the contract programme ends — so the scheme has substantial float against the date that actually matters to a buyer. A page that says “on track” without the arithmetic, or “behind schedule” without the float, is wrong either way. And the genuinely favourable fact that sits under all of it, which no consumer source publishes: construction was slated to start on 20 January 2025 and the register dates the first sale and purchase agreement 1 May 2026. The contractor was on site about FIFTEEN MONTHS BEFORE the first sale. One honest caveat: peratusSiap is a live field with no read date of its own. Every percentage above is as read on 21 October 2026, and the arithmetic moves with it.

Green: GOLD but PROVISIONAL — and the Platinum that belongs to somebody else

All four GreenRE tiers were read. Residensi Seri Embun appears on the GOLD table, status PROVISIONAL, active, dated 20 May 2024, on tool RES v3.3 — the RESIDENTIAL tool. PROVISIONAL IS NOT CERTIFIED, and this page never writes that word. A provisional rating is awarded at design stage against a submitted design; a final certificate follows verification of what was actually built. One press outlet gets this exactly right and prints “GreenRE Gold (Provisional)”, and it deserves the credit. The developer’s own sponsored advertorial names no certification at all, which is the odder omission of the two. The certification date PRECEDES the licence and the permit — 20 May 2024, against a licence of 13 August 2025 and a permit of 6 January 2026. That is the NORMAL order for a design-stage provisional and it is not an anomaly. The tool code also answers the title question independently: RES v3.3 is the residential tool here, while the same licensee’s shop-office product carries the non-residential tool. Two products, two use classes, confirmed by a third party with no stake in either. AND THE ROW THIS PAGE WILL NOT BORROW: City of Elmina - Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 hold GreenRE PLATINUM — provisional, on the TOWNSHIP tool, held by Sime Darby Property Bhd. A page could write “City of Elmina is GreenRE Platinum” and be literally true and grossly misleading. It is not a rating of Seri Embun, it is not final and it is not E&O’s. Four Sime Darby Elmina rows in total are refused here by name. Elsewhere: the national green building index directory returned server errors when we tried it, so that is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative; no BCA Green Mark, LEED or quality-assessment claim appears on any developer surface; the developer publishes no certificate library; and NEITHER FILED BROCHURE MAKES ANY GREEN CLAIM AT ALL — so unlike several projects in this series there is no green superlative sitting inside a statutory document here.

Awards, superlatives and the density arithmetic — what this page refuses, and why

AWARDS: ZERO, for this project and for Laman Embun. The developer’s own awards page runs to roughly seventy-five entries from 2007 to 2024. Not one names Elmina, Seri Embun or Laman Embun. Not one is in Selangor at all. What is there belongs to the listed parent, to Penang hotels and condominiums, to a Kuala Lumpur tower, to a Johor scheme and to one individual. If any portal, agent or press piece calls Seri Embun “award-winning”, it is unsupported. The two most recent corporate awards are recent enough to look current and belong to the listed parent, not to this project, and they are refused here by name. “THE MOST EXCLUSIVE ADDRESS IN ELMINA” — and this one is printed inside a FILED statutory document. It is untestable as written, and on the only comparable published evidence it is doubtful: the township master developer’s own landed scheme about 2.1 km away has a filed price band reaching ABOVE Seri Embun’s top end. Refused. “LOW DENSITY” — testable, so this page does the arithmetic instead of repeating the adjective. 360 units divided by 35.83 acres is 10.05 units per acre. That figure is computed on this project’s OWN parcel, and the acreage is a MARKETING figure from a company press statement, not a filed one — neither filed brochure nor the register carries a land-area field at all. Three marketing figures exist (35.8, 35.83 and “36” acres), consistent to within rounding. 10.05 units per acre is unremarkable for 23-foot-frontage terrace housing and is not low by any published benchmark. AND THE DENOMINATOR TRAP, which is the biggest single arithmetic risk on this project: the developer’s Elmina footprint is reported at 65 acres, of which the shop-office precinct is 15.1 acres; the 2013 land disposal was about 135 acres; and City of Elmina as a whole is a township of several thousand acres. Dividing 360 units by 65, by 135 or by the township would produce 5.5, 2.7 or something near zero per acre — and every one of those would be a lie. The computation above uses 35.83 acres or it is not made at all. The 65-acre and 135-acre figures also contradict each other, and that contradiction is printed here unresolved. And the clubhouse, the linear parks and the garden terraces sit inside the same 35.83 acres on every reading, so they are already in the denominator and are not deducted. REFUSED TOO: “the area’s first dedicated clubhouse” — one sponsored surface, “the area” undefined, and the township has had its own facilities for years; “unparalleled landed living” — one sponsored surface, untestable; and the claims that the homes will “hold their value” and rest on “solid commercial and investment fundamentals” — investment-performance claims in paid copy, which carry no figures, which is the only reason they can be mentioned at all. They are not repeated as statements of fact. A GDV figure the managing director gives for the developer’s current and upcoming Elmina phases — close to RM1 billion — is consistent with the filed arithmetic and does not contradict the filing: 360 units at the filed statutory minimum alone is on the order of RM760 million, and the RM256.4 million construction contract is roughly a third of that. A development contract that does not exceed the sum of the filed minima is the cross-check passing, and it passes here.

No affordable component, no transfer moratorium — and whose the township’s affordable stock is

The Selangor housing board’s controlled-price list of 10 September 2026 was read in full, including its eligibility rules. There is no Embun row, no Eastern row and no Oriental row anywhere in it. Seri Embun has NO controlled-price component and NO Rumah Selangorku stock — consistent with the filing, which carries no affordable-price row, no affordable unit type and no small-type anomaly, and with the register, whose only two components are the 185 and 175 Rumah Teres above RM2.1 million. Absence from that list is never a clean negative on its own, because the list carries only stock open for application — but here it agrees with two primary sources. WHY IT MATTERS ANYWAY, and this is the trap: the same list DOES carry an affordable serviced apartment inside City of Elmina, at a controlled price, on the Open offering, in the same district. It belongs to the TOWNSHIP MASTER DEVELOPER, on a different licence, and it is a NEIGHBOUR rather than part of this product. The eligibility rules attached to that regime are real and they are heavy: Malaysian citizenship for applicant and spouse, a minimum age, household income caps, a bar on having previously owned a home in Selangor, compulsory registration — and A FIVE-YEAR TRANSFER MORATORIUM, under which ownership may be transferred only after five years from the agreement and only with state authority approval. NONE OF IT REACHES SERI EMBUN. A page that mentioned “affordable homes in City of Elmina” without saying whose they are would import an income test and a five-year moratorium onto a strata landed house above RM2.1 million that carries neither. So, in one line: Seri Embun has no affordable component and no transfer moratorium, and the township’s affordable stock belongs to the township developer.

The developer publishes a model statutory table for its other states — and nothing for this one

E&O publishes a full statutory disclosure table on its own website: twelve projects with licensee, registration number, licence, advertising permit, approving authority, plan reference, tenure, encumbrance, unit count, expected completion and a price range. It is better than most Malaysian developers publish. AND NEITHER ELMINA PRODUCT IS ON IT. Every row belongs to Penang, to Kuala Lumpur or to Johor, under three other licensees. EASTERN & ORIENTAL EXPRESS SDN. BHD. appears nowhere on it. That is a real finding: the developer publishes a model statutory block for its Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Johor schemes and publishes NOTHING for its two Selangor products — even though Seri Embun has a live licence, a live advertising permit and TWO filed advertisements lodged with the ministry. So every statutory particular on this page comes from the ministry’s own register and the ministry’s own filed brochures rather than from the developer’s website. That is a point in Louis’s favour, not the developer’s: he is publishing what the developer has not. Two smaller observations in the same direction: the developer’s property overview page carries CITY OF ELMINA as a location FILTER OPTION with no project behind it — the location is in the site’s data model and the content is simply absent — and its press-release page is empty, its year filter stopping at 2021. And its site publishes two different head-office telephone numbers; the one the filings use is the one quoted on this page.

NOT PUBLISHED, therefore not on this page — with the document that would close each gap

This is the list Louis takes to the developer, and it is published so you can see exactly where this page stops. The MUKIM — not filed anywhere: the issue document of title, or the PT / lot number. The LOT or PT NUMBER — not published by any source for Seri Embun: the title, or a search at the Pejabat Tanah dan Galian. The LAND AREA — not filed; only three marketing figures: the filed layout plan, or the title. The Sekatan Kepentingan — not printed in either generation: the title. The CAR PARK per unit — not printed in either generation: the agreement’s schedules, or the approved building plan. The COMMON-PROPERTY AND FACILITIES SCHEDULE, including whether the clubhouse serves Seri Embun alone — nothing filed: the Third Schedule of the Schedule H agreement, and the management agreement. WHICH UNITS ARE IN WHICH PHASE — only the 185 and 175 counts: the filed layout plan. THE PER-TYPE UNIT COUNTS — not published anywhere: the layout plan or the sales chart. PER-TYPE PRICES — only two phase-level bands are filed: the price list. The ARCHITECT, ENGINEER and QUANTITY SURVEYOR — named on no surface at all; even the main contractor is known only from the CONTRACTOR’s own disclosure and not the developer’s: the approved plan, or the developer. The MAINTENANCE CHARGE and SINKING FUND — not published: the agreement, and the management corporation’s first budget. STRATA SHARE UNITS and ACCESSORY PARCELS — not published: the strata plan. A FILED GATED-AND-GUARDED COMMITMENT — only sponsored copy and a render: the agreement, or the approved layout plan. REMAINING STOCK — the register’s Baki Unit is empty: the developer’s sales chart. ANY RAIL-STATION DISTANCE — no source gives one, despite Stesen MRT being a filed amenity category: walk or drive it with Louis. THE NAME OF THE FOREST RESERVE a sponsored advertorial says borders the site, and the figure it attaches to it — unnamed and unsupported: the state forestry gazette. And a PIXEL DIMENSION for any image of this project — see the imagery note below: the developer’s own file, supplied directly.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction on his own company’s project materials is absolute, and this paragraph is the only place on this page where these words appear at all. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion and no commission figure is published here, in either language, in the body or in this page’s structured data. And on this project the finding behind the refusal is worth stating: none of that kind of figure appears on any surface read for Seri Embun in the first place, so there was nothing of the sort to withhold. No yield, no return projection, no leaseback and no guaranteed-rental rate appears anywhere either, and none is published here. ON THE ETHNIC-ALLOCATION QUESTION, STATED PLAINLY BECAUSE THE SHAPE MATTERS: there is NO SUCH FIELD AT ALL in either filed generation. That is a different thing from a field that exists and carries a value, and it is worth distinguishing from two other things it is often confused with. It is NOT a unit quota — no allocation figure appears on any surface read. It is NOT a lot-title classification — none appears either. And it is NOT a price-adjustment field with a percentage withheld, which is the shape several other projects in this series carry. On this filing the Bumiputera field simply does not exist, in either generation, and saying so is more useful than silence. WHAT IS PUBLISHED HERE, AND DELIBERATELY: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price range from the developer’s own legally filed advertisement — Fasa 1 RM2,124,200 to RM2,839,200 and Fasa 2 RM2,228,200 to RM2,826,200 — which the KPKT register repeats component by component to the sen. It is not a price list, it is not a quotation and it is not an offer. Also published, because they are public policy or public record rather than price adjustments: the Selangor Zone 1 foreign-buyer floor, the construction contract sum from a listed contractor’s own disclosure, the managing director’s stated development value for the developer’s Elmina phases, and the register’s construction-progress percentages. THREE SPECIFIC FIGURES REFUSED BY NAME, so that nothing scrapes them onto this page. ONE: one portal record carries a “from” price materially BELOW the filed statutory minimum, on the same page as a correct statutory panel that contradicts it. The figure is not recorded or reproduced anywhere here. And the publisher count matters: the SAME portal’s other record prints a “from” price equal to the filed minimum TO THE RINGGIT, which is clean and deserves the credit. Collapsing the pair leaves ONE publisher contradicting itself — and no developer surface anywhere carries a sub-minimum figure, so on this project the developer is the clean side. That is worth saying. TWO: an auto-generated estimated monthly instalment on the same portal record. That is a financing-derived number and no instalment figure and no rate appears here. THREE: a built-up field of 37,466 sqft, about eleven times the filed maximum, which is simply broken. Everything beyond the filed statutory bands — the real price of a real unit, and anything attaching to it — comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Ask Louis for both, in writing.

Why this page carries no imagery at all, and what was actually examined

This is a deliberate decision, not an omission, and the reasoning is published so you can judge it. NO PHOTOGRAPH OR RENDERING OF THIS PROJECT IS PUBLISHED BY ANY SOURCE WHOSE SUBJECT WE COULD ESTABLISH, AND WE WILL NOT PUBLISH ONE WHOSE SUBJECT WE CANNOT ESTABLISH. Two independent reasons, either sufficient on its own. FIRST: the developer publishes no image of this project at all. Its website has no project page for Seri Embun and no project page for Laman Embun; its entire served image set is site furniture and sliders for Penang and Kuala Lumpur schemes. It carries City of Elmina as a location filter option with nothing behind it. SECOND: the one host that does hold renders of this project publishes NO per-image caption, no content-management title and no dimension data of any kind. Fifteen files there share ONE generic description string between them, so the only subject information available is the filename — and a filename is not a caption. The acceptance test on this site includes a minimum pixel width, and the only dimension that host gives up is a 300 by 200 pixel thumbnail, about a third of the floor. An unmeasured candidate cannot be accepted. What else was examined and declined, by class, so nothing looks overlooked: a press photo-call group shot and a portrait of a named executive — declined because this page does not publish a third party’s photograph of identifiable individuals; an analytical location map that is the clearest thing found on this job and is a publisher’s own watermarked product — declined, and the location is described in words instead; a captioned photograph of a SALES-GALLERY SHOW UNIT — declined, because a show unit is not the product and the caption says so itself; a video thumbnail below the floor; and a corporate logo. AND THE CATEGORY THIS PAGE REFUSED MOST FIRMLY: the township master developer’s own image library was deliberately not mined. Every usable-looking Elmina image on it belongs to a Sime Darby scheme — an award-winning landed scheme 2.1 km away, the lakeside mall, the central park, the lake garden, the township sales gallery — and borrowing any of them would attach another developer’s work to this page. A shop-office elevation on this page would be a worse error than a missing image, and so would a neighbour’s award photograph. Fourteen pages on this site now ship with no imagery at all. The house position is settled: an uncaptioned or wrongly captioned image is worse than no image. When the developer supplies its own files with written confirmation of what each one shows, they go on this page and nothing else about it has to change.

Seri Embun at City of Elmina — the questions buyers actually ask

Read these next

Published 21 October 2026 · last verified 21 October 2026 against KPKT TEDUH 31126-1, both filed advertisements, all four GreenRE tiers, the Selangor housing board’s list of 10 September 2026 and a listed contractor’s Bursa announcement. Marketing information, not an offer. A register is a live document — ask Louis to re-read it on the day you decide.