Laman Embun @ City of Elmina (Elmina West), Shah Alam — 110 two- and three-storey SHOP OFFICES, and it sits OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act: NO developer licence, NO advertising and sales permit, NO filed advertisement, NO Schedule G or H, NO statutory liquidated damages and NO filed completion date

Four things this page exists to tell you

This is a short page, and that is a finding rather than a failure. There is no filed document, no licence, no permit, no filed unit schedule, no filed delivery date and no portal record — so what the page can honestly do is say exactly that, precisely.

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

No coordinate, lot number, mukim or street address is published for Laman Embun by any source. The district below is carried over from the same developer’s licensed residential scheme in the same landholding, where it is derivable from filed register records — and it is labelled as that rather than presented as this product’s own filed district. The one published map that locates this parcel is a publisher’s own watermarked analytical graphic, which cannot be republished, so the location is described in words instead.

What is on a register, and what is not — for PT52005 - Shop Offices

On a licensed housing development this table is the statutory particulars. Here it is a table of absences, and each cell names the register that was checked. One row of one register carries this product. Everything else below reads NONE, and in most cases NONE is the correct legal answer rather than a missing document.

Read 21 October 2026: the KPKT register of licensed developers and registered projects, searched on the developer’s name tokens and on “Elmina”; all four GreenRE tiers; the Selangor housing board’s controlled-price list of 10 September 2026, which carries no Embun, Eastern or Oriental row and is in any case residential-only in scope, so it is out of scope here rather than a negative; the developer’s own statutory disclosure page, which omits both Elmina products; and a major portal’s new-launch sitemap, which carries no Laman Embun URL and which truncated, making it corroboration rather than a clean negative.

Every absence on this page was tested rather than assumed, and where a test could not produce a clean negative the page says so. A register is a live document: ask Louis to re-check the GreenRE row and the licensee record on the day you decide.

Why there is no licence, stated as law rather than as a gap

A developer licence and an advertising and sales permit are required under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, and the Act reaches housing accommodation. A shop office with no living accommodation is not housing accommodation. So no licence and no permit CAN exist for Laman Embun, and their absence is not a failure by anybody. Three tests were run and all three are consistent. ONE: the licensee’s own entry in the ministry’s register of licensed developers carries bilangan projek: 1 — ONE project — and that one project is the residential scheme in the same landholding. There is no second registration on this licensee. TWO: no other licensee holds a Laman Embun registration. Register searches on the developer’s two name tokens returned six licensees each, and a search on “Elmina” returned exactly two — this developer’s single-project company, and an equestrian-centre company belonging to an entirely different listed group, which is refused by name as a decoy. THREE: a major portal’s own new-launch sitemap carries no Laman Embun URL. That sitemap truncated mid-entry, so it is corroboration and never a clean negative, and this page says so. SAY IT PLAINLY, BECAUSE ALMOST NOBODY DOES: Laman Embun is not a licensed housing development, it carries no Schedule G or H, and its buyers have no Housing Development Act liquidated-damages claim and no statutory housing development account. That is not a criticism of the developer. It is the correct legal position for a commercial product — and a buyer who does not know it will assume protections that are not there.

The GreenRE row: the only register entry this product has, and what it does and does not prove

All four GreenRE tiers were read. Laman Embun appears on exactly one row, on the SILVER table: PT52005 - Shop Offices, developer cell Eastern Oriental Express Sdn Bhd, status PROVISIONAL, active, dated 30 May 2025, tool NRB v3.2 — the non-residential building tool. WHAT IT PROVES, AND IT IS A GENUINE UPGRADE ON THE PRESS: a portal reported that Laman Embun “aims for GreenRE Silver certification”. The register shows it is already a REGISTERED SILVER PROVISIONAL. That is better than aiming at something — and worse than being certified. Both halves have to be said, and this page never writes “certified”. A provisional rating is awarded at design stage against a submitted design. A final certificate follows verification of what was actually built, and this product has not reached that. AND THE TOOL CODE ANSWERS THE USE-CLASS QUESTION INDEPENDENTLY. NRB v3.2 is the non-residential tool; the same licensee’s other product carries the residential tool on the same register. Two products, two use classes, confirmed by a third party with no interest in either. That is the cleanest external confirmation on this job that these are genuinely two different things and not two phases of one. WHAT IT DOES NOT PROVE: that the row IS Laman Embun. GreenRE publishes no address and no state, so the identification is an inference on five legs — set out in full in the project-DNA section above — and this page labels it as an inference every time it appears. The one thing the row hands over that nothing else does is a land-title reference. No filed document, no portal and no press piece publishes a lot or PT number for Laman Embun or for the residential scheme. PT 52005 is the only such reference published anywhere, and it comes from a green-building register rather than from a land office. Closed by: a search of PT 52005 at the Pejabat Tanah dan Galian, or the Laman Embun sale and purchase agreement. Ask Louis for the search. One further note for completeness: the national green building index directory returned server errors when we tried it, so that is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative; and the Bronze and Silver GreenRE tables both truncated, though the visible Silver window covers the relevant period.

The take-up claim, and who is actually making it

Laman Embun is reported FULLY TAKEN UP. Every surface carrying that claim traces to the same company statement, and there is no independent verification of it anywhere. And the two most specific versions of the claim do not match each other. One news outlet reports it as “fully taken up since its launch last November”; another reports it as sold out “within the first week”. Those are two different claims about the same event, both from the developer, and this page prints both rather than choosing. What makes it unverifiable, concretely: there is no register to check a remaining-stock field against, because there is no registration. There is no portal project record for Laman Embun at all. And there is no filed advertisement carrying a Baki Unit figure. On a licensed scheme at least one of those three would normally exist. So the honest statement is: the developer says it is fully taken up, two outlets state that differently, nothing independent confirms it, and nothing contradicts it either. If you are enquiring, the only way to know what is genuinely available — including anything that has come back to the market — is to ask the developer on the day. Louis will.

The developer: E&O — and why Sime Darby is not it

The vendor is EASTERN & ORIENTAL EXPRESS SDN. BHD. (338864-V), KPKT developer code 31126 — the same company that holds the licence for the residential scheme in the same landholding. Registered office and business address: C-34-01, Menara Vista Petaling, No. 137, Jalan Puchong, 58200 Kuala Lumpur. Register status Aktif, mempunyaiKesalahan: null — no offence recorded. It is an Eastern & Oriental group company, on three independent legs that all point the same way: its registered and business address is character-for-character identical to E&O Berhad’s own published headquarters address; the telephone number on the sibling scheme’s filed brochures is E&O Berhad’s own headquarters number; and the register’s e-mail and website fields are both on E&O’s own domain. The closing leg is a listed contractor’s Bursa announcement of 6 January 2025, which describes the company as an “indirect subsidiary of Eastern and Oriental Bhd”. “Indirect” is that regulated filing’s own word: the intermediate holding company is named nowhere reachable, so the existence of the chain is established and the chain itself is not. E&O Berhad’s own registration number is a different number and is not printed here as the vendor’s. SIME DARBY PROPERTY IS NOT THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PRECINCT, and the distinction matters because the township around it is entirely Sime Darby’s. Sime Darby Property is the township master developer — established by code: SIME DARBY PROPERTY (CITY OF ELMINA) SDN. BHD., KPKT code 13017, 51 registered projects, none of them this one. It is also the vendor of the land, on its own press release of 26 September 2013, which records a memorandum of agreement to dispose of about 135 acres in Elmina West to Eastern & Oriental Berhad for a wellness-themed residential and commercial project, under a 2011 collaborative agreement, at a price “to be agreed later” that is not published. And it owns the township amenities. Master developer, land vendor and amenity owner are three roles, and not one of them is “the developer of Laman Embun”. No Sime Darby award, GreenRE rating, acreage or superlative is borrowed anywhere on this page. And the disclosure gap worth knowing: E&O publishes a model statutory disclosure table on its own website for twelve Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Johor projects — and neither Elmina product appears on it. For this product that is unsurprising, because there are no statutory particulars to publish. For the residential one next door it is a real gap, and that page says so.

Foreign buyers: a different regime entirely, and no figure on this page

This is COMMERCIAL property, and the Selangor residential price floors do not reach it. Acquisition of commercial property by a foreign buyer runs on a different consent regime from residential acquisition, and this page publishes NO threshold figure for it. Why that matters here specifically: the residential scheme next door has a published Selangor Zone 1 floor of RM2,000,000, and that figure is on its page, properly derived. Every source behind the Selangor zone table is a RESIDENTIAL acquisition instrument. Their application to a commercial title is NOT ESTABLISHED, and letting RM2,000,000 read across onto a shop office would be exactly the kind of mistake this page exists to prevent. So the honest answer is the shape of the answer: the district is Daerah Petaling, carried over from the sibling registration; the verified residential floor for that district is published on that page; and whether anything comparable applies to this title is a question for PTG Selangor and the Economic Planning Unit, in writing, before any deposit. Two further things no source settles for this parcel: whether any Sekatan Kepentingan is endorsed on the title, and whether the title is subject to any state consent on transfer. On a commercial or industrial title a state-consent requirement is common and usually unpublished. The issue document of title answers both, and nothing else does.

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

On this product the list is almost everything, and publishing it is the most useful thing the page can do. A registered scheme name — none exists: nothing will create one; it is not a licensable product. A developer licence and an advertising permit — cannot exist: same reason. A filed statutory advertisement — none: none can be filed. The filed building type — not filed anywhere; the two- and three-storey description is press: the approved building plan. A unit schedule with type codes and per-type areas — not published; only a 3,256–10,883 sq ft range and a “from 22 ft by 75 ft” lot: the price list, and the sale and purchase agreement’s schedules. The split between the two- and three-storey units — not published: the layout plan. Car-park provision — not published: the approved plan. The completion or handover date — no source publishes one and none is filed: the contract, which is also the only place one could be enforced. The lot or PT number — only the inferred GreenRE reference: a PTG Selangor search, or the title. The mukim — not published: the title. The tenure, from a filed source — freehold is a press statement only: the title. Any Sekatan Kepentingan — not published: the title. The price — deliberately not published here: the price list and the sale and purchase agreement. Remaining stock — no register field exists to read: the developer, on the day. Maintenance or service charges — not published: the contract and the first-year budget. Any distance to anything — no table exists for this parcel: drive it with Louis. Any image — see the 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. No yield, return projection, leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate is published either — and on a shop office that is worth stating twice, because return figures are the usual currency of commercial marketing and none of them belongs on a page like this. AND THE BIGGER REFUSAL ON THIS PRODUCT IS THE PRICE ITSELF. On a licensed housing development this site publishes the filed statutory Unit Selling Price range from the developer’s own legally filed advertisement, because that is a public statutory record, and it labels it as one. HERE THERE IS NO FILING, SO THERE IS NO FILED RANGE, SO THERE IS NOTHING OF THAT KIND TO PUBLISH. A “from” figure does circulate for this product on marketing surfaces. It has no filed table behind it, nothing against which it can be checked, and it is not recorded or reproduced anywhere on this page. Where no filed statutory range exists, the house rule is to publish no price at all and to say that is the rule. ON THE ETHNIC-ALLOCATION QUESTION, AND THE SHAPE OF THE ANSWER MATTERS: there is NO SUCH FIELD AT ALL, because there is no filing in which a field could exist. That is a different thing from a filed document that carries the field with a value withheld, which is the shape several other projects in this series have. It is also not a unit quota — no allocation figure appears on any surface read. And it is not a lot-title classification — none appears either. On this product the Bumiputera field does not exist to withhold, and saying that precisely is more useful than silence. WHAT IS PUBLISHED HERE, AND DELIBERATELY: the GreenRE register’s own row, flagged as an inference; the reported unit count, acreage, built-up range, lot size, launch date and take-up claim, each labelled as a company press statement; and the 2013 land-disposal facts from the vendor’s own press release, which include no price because the release says the price was to be agreed later. Everything else — 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, and appoint your own solicitor before you sign.

Why this page carries no imagery at all

NOTHING WAS FOUND, ANYWHERE. No photograph, rendering, elevation, site plan or unit layout of Laman Embun is published by any source whose subject we could establish — and we will not publish one whose subject we cannot establish. The developer publishes no project page and no image for this product at all; its website carries City of Elmina as a location filter option with nothing behind it. There is no portal project record for Laman Embun, so there is no portal gallery either. Exactly two pictures are connected to this product anywhere, and both are declined. One is a press photo-call group shot of named executives — declined, because this page does not publish a third party’s photograph of identifiable individuals. The other is the single most useful image found on this whole job: a published analytical map that marks this precinct’s parcel in red. It is a publisher’s own product, clearly watermarked to its source, so it cannot be republished — and that is why the location section above describes the parcel in words instead. AND THE CATEGORY REFUSED MOST FIRMLY: nothing is borrowed from the township master developer’s image library, and nothing is borrowed from the sibling residential scheme. A three-storey terrace render on a shop-office page would be a worse error than a missing image, and a neighbour’s award photograph would be worse still. 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.

Laman Embun — the questions a shop-office buyer should be asking

Read these next

Published 21 October 2026 · last verified 21 October 2026 against the KPKT register of licensed developers, all four GreenRE tiers, the Selangor housing board’s list of 10 September 2026, the developer’s own statutory disclosure page and a listed contractor’s Bursa announcement. Marketing information, not an offer. No price is published on this page, and the reason is published instead.