AKASA, Cheras South — Taman Cheras Jaya / Balakong, Mukim Kajang, Daerah Hulu Langat, SELANGOR: registered as PANGSAPURI AKASA, KPKT 14619-1, 998 serviced apartments, Siap Dengan CCC 20 May 2021 — and an approved +22-month extension that the KPKT register discloses and nothing else on earth does

Six things this page does that no other source on AKASA does

There is no filed advertisement for this project, so the KPKT register is the only statutory source there is. That turns out to cut both ways, and both halves are printed: the register discloses a material fact that no other document on earth discloses, and it is also the only place a buyer can go, because the developer publishes no statutory panel at all.

Nine type labels, ONE published floor plan, and no filed built-up schedule to check any of them against

Everything in this section is a MARKETING figure, and it has to be said at the top: there is no filed advertisement for this project, so no filed built-up schedule exists at all. The developer publishes exactly one floor plan — Type A — for a nine-label, 998-unit scheme. The only per-type breakdown in existence is one publisher’s; the same publisher says “seven layout designs” in its prose and then lists nine labels in its own table, A1 and C1 being the two extra and the classic mirror-unit suffix. The marketed range 850 – 2,048 sq ft is carried identically by four sources — the developer, The Star group, the PropertyGuru group and one further portal — which is unusually consistent for this series and is credited as such. Two warnings before you read a built-up. First, the register’s keluasan: “93 mps” is a built-up in square metres, not a land area: 93 m² = 1,001 sq ft, which sits inside the marketed range. Second, the same portal’s own listing range opens at about 732 sq ft against a project floor of 850, and 732 appears in no type table on any surface — it may be a mis-keyed listing or an unpublished type, it is unresolvable from here, and so this page publishes neither the figure as a type nor any “smallest unit” claim.

Every built-up, bedroom, bathroom and car-park figure in this section is a MARKETING figure. Keluasan on the register record is a built-up in square metres (93 m² = 1,001 sq ft), not a land area, and every square-foot conversion of a square-metre figure on this page is this page’s own arithmetic and is labelled as such. No filed built-up schedule exists for this project, so nothing in this section can be checked against a filing, and nothing here is presented as filed.

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.

Taman Cheras Jaya / Balakong, Cheras South, Mukim Kajang, Daerah Hulu Langat, SELANGOR — and why almost no distance appears on this page

Cheras straddles the Kuala Lumpur / Selangor boundary, and on this project the boundary is worth money. AKASA is on the SELANGOR side, and five independent legs say so. The register’s own negeri reads Selangor, its daerah reads Hulu Langat, its lokasi reads Hulu Langat, Selangor, and its filed coordinates are 3.027068, 101.754458. The project quantity surveyor prints Lots 799, 800 and 2287, Jalan Cheras Serdang, Lebuhraya SILK, Mukim Kajang, Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor — the only source anywhere giving lot numbers or a mukim. The Star group’s own developer directory files the project under Cheras South, Selangor. And the licensee is itself named Hap Seng Land Development (Balakong) Sdn Bhd; Balakong is in Daerah Hulu Langat. No source anywhere places this project in Kuala Lumpur. But three portals DO get the locality wrong, and in a way that matters: two surfaces of one publisher and a second portal print Seri Kembangan, two of them with postcode 43300; an auctioneer listing goes furthest and titles the project “Pangsapuri Akasa — Seri Kembangan, Selangor”. Seri Kembangan is a different locality in a different district, and 43200 — not 43300 — is the Balakong / Cheras postcode. The state is right by accident on all of them; the district is wrong on all of them. Why it matters in money: the Selangor Zone 1 foreign-buyer floor is RM2,000,000 and the Kuala Lumpur floor is RM1,000,000. A page that filed this project in Kuala Lumpur would halve the floor on the reader’s screen and change the answer from “no unit ever qualified” to “the top of the range is close”. It did qualify under neither; the Selangor figure is the right one.

Registered as PANGSAPURI AKASA — KPKT project 14619-1, licensee 14619

Printed as the register prints it, including the parts that are a dash and the parts that are absent from the record’s schema altogether. Read on 13 October 2026 from the public KPKT TEDUH register licensee record for developer 14619 and the project record 14619-1, together with that record’s full advertising-permit history. There is NO filed advertisement to compare the register against. Not one. The record’s own advertisement array is [] and its brochure field is null; the filed-document server returns 404 on IKLAN_BROSUR_01, IKLAN_BROSUR_02 and IKLAN_AKHBAR_01 under files/14619/14619-1/; and one further path form is robots-disallowed to this tool, which is inconclusive and never read as a negative. Two independent legs, the same answer. And there is no developer statutory panel either, which cuts both ways and both halves are stated. The project microsite’s eight pages carry no footer, no company name, no registration number, no licence number, no permit number, no approving authority, no plan reference, no tenure statement, no unit count, no storey count, no completion date and no price; the brand host has a disclaimer naming a different company and nothing else statutory. Against the developer: a buyer who goes to its own website for the statutory particulars the Housing Development Act requires to be advertised finds none at all. In its favour: there is therefore no STALE developer panel to contradict the register — no below-floor price table, no permit validity printed into a licence field, no fabricated validity. The whole family of developer-panel errors this series keeps finding cannot occur here, because the panel does not exist.

Read 13 October 2026 from the public KPKT TEDUH register records for developer 14619 and project 14619-1, including the record’s full permit history. Register percentages, licence and permit statuses and price bands change; a licence that is expired today was current in January 2026. Every price figure in this table is a public government registry band: not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. AKASA is a completed development, so the authoritative documents for a buyer today are the individual strata title, the strata plan, the management corporation’s accounts and a current valuation.

What this table cannot show, and why that is itself the finding. On a project with a filed advertisement, this table would carry a second column of filed statutory particulars beside the register’s and would name every place the two disagree. On 14619-1 there is nothing to put in that column: iklan is an empty array, brochure is null, three guessable document paths 404, and the developer publishes no statutory panel of its own. So every statutory particular on this page comes from the KPKT register, and a reader is entitled to know that before they weigh anything on it.

Scope: this page is the 998-unit residential scheme, and Akasa Business Park is fenced inside it

This page covers PANGSAPURI AKASA, KPKT project 14619-1 — 998 serviced apartment units in three towers — and carries Akasa Business Park as a clearly separated section rather than as a second page or as part of the residential facts. Why one page and not two: the residential scheme is the substantive item, with the only KPKT registration, the only developer licence, the only advertising and sales permit, the only statutory contract, the only price band and the only delivery record; while Akasa Business Park could not carry a page in this format at all, because it has no licensee record, no licence, no permit, no filed building type, no contract schedule, no filed price and no completion date — nothing statutory to publish. Why it is on the page at all: because a buyer who finds it under a portal’s /condo-for-sale/ URL needs to be told, in plain language, that it is not a condominium and that the Housing Development Act does not reach it. What being outside the Act actually costs a commercial buyer there: no Schedule G or Schedule H prescribed contract · no HDA liquidated-damages formula for late delivery · no section 7A housing development account holding the purchase money · no statutory defect liability period · no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims · and no filed advertisement particulars of any kind. That is the normal and correct position for a commercial component, and it is not a criticism of the developer — it is simply a different legal regime, and the page says which one applies to what. And the unit count there is published three different ways: 19 commercial units in the parent’s audited annual reports for 2022, 2023 and 2024, with 5 to 8 storeys and a GDV of RM210 million · about 127 retail, shop-office and office units plus one anchor-tenant lot in the project quantity surveyor’s own description · 42 as one portal’s LISTING count, on a record whose own table shows floors and units as not available. A 6.7-times spread, between a company’s own auditor-signed report and its own quantity surveyor, reconciled by nobody. The most likely reading is that the audited report counts whole shop-office buildings or lots while the quantity surveyor counts the strata parcels inside them — but no document says so, and this page reports both and reconciles neither. What IS audited about it: the 2024 report names its occupiers as Lifecare Diagnostics Centre and Portman International School and calls it a prominent commercial hub — the only evidence anywhere that it is tenanted rather than merely built. All 998 residential units are licensed. The registration gap on this project is in the commercial component, not in the apartments. If Louis later builds a commercial page for it, it will be a commercial page with an explicit “no HDA protection” frame, and none of the residential figures on this page will appear on it.

Why this page is tagged Subsales and Condo & Serviced Apartment, and deliberately NOT New Launch

Taxonomy, stated rather than left to be guessed. This page is filed under Subsales, Condo & Serviced Apartment and Commercial, under Selangor and Cheras South, and under the developer brand Hap Seng Land — while the page body names the licensee precisely as HAP SENG LAND DEVELOPMENT (BALAKONG) SDN. BHD., because the taxonomy carries the group brand and the liability sits with the special-purpose company. Subsales is right and New Launch would be wrong: the register reads Siap Dengan CCC at 100.00% with the CCC dated 20 May 2021; the advertising and sales permit lapsed 25 January 2022; the developer licence expired 26 January 2026 with no renewal printed after it; The Star group’s own developer directory files Akasa under Completed Projects with zero new launches; and one portal carries 84 residential sale listings and 114 residential rental listings. A buyer reaches these apartments from an owner, not from a developer sales gallery — so there is no launch language anywhere on this page, no “now selling”, no “newly launched” and no “coming soon”. Condo & Serviced Apartment is right because the filed building type is Pangsapuri Servis and the contract schedule is Schedule H. Commercial is attached for exactly one reason: this page carries the Akasa Business Park section. It does not mean the apartments are on a commercial product — although one portal does report the LAND TITLE as commercial, which no filing confirms or denies. And the location terms: Selangor and Cheras South. Deliberately NOT the existing Cheras locality, which on this site belongs to Kuala Lumpur and would halve the foreign-buyer floor on the reader’s screen; deliberately NOT Seri Kembangan, which three portals print and all three get wrong; and deliberately NOT Kuala Lumpur, which no source anywhere claims.

Not published, therefore not on this page — the list, field by field

Every item below is a real question a buyer would ask, and no source reached answers it. Identity and title. The licensee’s company registration number — not in the register, not in three annual reports’ reachable text, not in a Singapore Exchange appendix, not on either developer host. The land title type, definitively — reported commercial by one portal, confirmed by nothing. Tenure as a filed fact, and whether any lease or restriction exists on the title. The Sekatan Kepentingan restriction in interest — unreadable, because no filed advertisement exists, and the single most important unanswerable question on this project for a foreign buyer. The chargee / Bebanan Tanah — no bank named and no Tiada filed. The landowner, the vendor, the acquisition price and the acquisition date — nothing; the quantity surveyor’s Lots 799, 800 and 2287 are the only land identification in existence. Whether there is a joint venture, and any shareholding percentage in the licensee. The building. The storey count of each tower, settled — five schemes across nine sources. The built-up of eight of the nine type labels, and any floor plan other than Type A. The total car-park bay count, and whether visitor bays exist. The plan-approval reference — there is none anywhere. The residential towers’ own parcel area, as against the 9.7-acre whole. Which upper deck, Level 29 or Level 36, carries which facility list. The gross floor area net of the nine carpark and facility levels — only the gross 2,300,000 sq ft exists. Any filed security schedule — so a 24-hour-security claim here rests on a portal tag alone. Delivery and the money. The ACTUAL vacant-possession date — vp: “-”; the CCC is not the VP. The REASON for the 22-month extension — no document states one. The main contractor, the contract sum and the commencement date — none is published anywhere, so the contractor-float check this series runs on other projects cannot be run here at all; note the inversion, that the quantity surveyor is published and the contractor is not. Unsold stock at any date — the register has no bakiUnit field on this record and no annual report gives a take-up figure. The current service charge and sinking fund — two conflicting 2017 figures and nothing since: RM0.25 psf in one portal’s spec table against RM0.30 psf including sinking fund in the same portal’s body text, which is published here because service-charge figures are rare in this series and both sides of the conflict belong to the reader. Any NAPIC or JPPH transacted band for this scheme. Any QLASSIC score. Whether strata titles have issued and whether the management corporation has been constituted — nothing, on a scheme CCC’d in 2021, which is a material gap for a resale buyer. The two components. How many commercial units Akasa Business Park actually has — 19 against about 127 against 42. Whether the commercial podium’s parking, access and facilities are shared with the residences, and on what terms — the quantity surveyor’s separate basements imply separation, and no document states it. What warranty or defect regime replaced the statutory one for the commercial buyers. Ask Louis for this list; he will go and ask for it, and he will tell you which answers came back on paper.

Green ratings, awards and QLASSIC — three clean negatives, and the borrows this page refuses

AKASA holds no green rating, and the developer claims none. That is a quiet, clean negative and it is stated as one. There is no GreenRE row for Pangsapuri Akasa, for Akasa, for Akasa Business Park or for the licensee, in any of the four tier tables or in the Bronze certification-entry list. And there is nothing to refuse: no GreenRE logo, no GBI logo, no “green”, no “sustainable” and no “aligned with” claim on any of the microsite’s eight pages, on the brand host, or in the audited reports’ project paragraphs. The limits of that reading, stated precisely: the Platinum tier closed completely at 95 rows with every column populated, which makes the Platinum no-hit a GENUINE clean negative; Gold, Silver and Bronze all truncate, so for those three the honest phrasing is “no entry in the reachable portion”, never a clean negative; and the Bronze certification-entry list covers April 2024 to December 2025, which is the WRONG WINDOW for a scheme certified in May 2021, so even that read carries less weight than it looks like it does. The other certification body’s directory has returned server errors and robots blocks throughout this series, so its silence is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative — and no source makes any claim under it here, so there is nothing to test. Awards: the project has none, and all ten on its own About page belong to something else. The microsite calls the group “an award-winning property developer” and prints a ten-item list. Not one item is Akasa’s. Six belong to the group’s AUTOMOTIVE or CORPORATE side — two for a Mercedes-Benz service centre at Kinrara, one for the group’s own office tower, one corporate shareholder-returns award, and a FIABCI 2016 Industrial award for the Mercedes-Benz Autohaus in BALAKONG, which is the building directly ACROSS THE ROAD from Akasa and which a reader has every reason to think is local to the project. It is not: different company, different division, different category, different building, and this page does not let it stand as Akasa’s. One item is a 2016 Asia Pacific commendation for a different scheme by a different licensee in Kuala Lumpur. One award is printed TWICE, and three name no project at all, which makes them unusable — and this page does not guess which buildings they belong to. The same group’s automotive sibling also holds a GreenRE GOLD row on a NON-RESIDENTIAL assessment tool for a building in a different state, and that row is refused here on the licensee and on the tool code, not on the brand. And no QLASSIC assessment exists for Akasa, for Pangsapuri Akasa or for the licensee — which is the one project-level score a completed scheme like this might genuinely have held. So the honest line is: Akasa itself has won nothing and is certified nothing. Its developer’s group has won things, for other buildings, in other divisions.

Imagery: this page carries none, and here is exactly why

No image on this page, no gallery, no featured image, and no stock photograph substituted for one. Reachability was established for seven assets on the developer’s host and NOT ONE of them is publishable. First and sharpest: the masterplan and tower graphics are caption-published, and their own captions assert a 36 / 29 / 29 storey configuration that the register’s 29 and the project quantity surveyor’s 30 / 23 / 23 both contradict. An undated render whose own caption describes a storey configuration the government record does not support may depict a scheme that was never built, and on a project certified in 2021 there is no excuse for republishing it. Second: the only floor plan the developer publishes is Type A, one of nine type labels, with no filed built-up schedule to check it against — publishing it would invite a reader to treat it as representative of a 998-unit, nine-type scheme, and it is undated, on a host with no content-management system and no date field at all. Third: the location graphic and its legends are a map of public infrastructure rather than the project — and that map’s own rail claim is refuted on this page, so republishing it would republish the error. Fourth: forty-one facility icons carry no alt text and no captions, and the mapping between their file numbering and the three published facility lists is an INFERENCE, not a caption — four level headings against three lists. Fifth: the award artwork belongs to awards that are not Akasa’s, so publishing it would publish the borrow. And a general limit on this host: every content image on all eight pages has EMPTY alt text — the only alt attribute anywhere on the site is on its registration pop-up — so nothing here can reach the confirmed grade this page requires, and the gallery page returns no project images at all to a fetch because it is script-loaded. This page would rather carry no picture than caption a guess. What would change it: the developer’s own artist impressions or sales kit, which would also answer several items on the NOT FILED list above; or a scripted pass at the gallery page, which would still leave the caption problem to be answered. Ask Louis — he has the project folder, and he will tell you what is in it rather than find you something that looks close.

What this page does not publish, and why

This agency has one absolute compliance instruction and this page applies it literally. No discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion information, no incentive-package detail and no commission information appears anywhere on this page, from any source, whatever its provenance — and those six terms appear exactly once each on this page, here in this sentence, and nowhere else. One further term is named here for completeness and appears exactly once, also here: Bumiputera. On this project the honest statement about it is that NO FILED ADVERTISEMENT EXISTS AT ALL, so the field in which such an allocation would be printed does not exist either — not blank, not withheld, simply absent along with the whole document — so there is no value to publish and none is implied. What that means in practice. The public government registry price band of RM482,888 – RM1,207,888 IS published on this page, because it is a public government record of the scheme as registered — labelled as such wherever it appears, always with not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. There is no filed statutory Unit Selling Price range on this project to publish beside it, because there is no filed advertisement: so the register-against-filing comparison is impossible in BOTH directions, and that is stated rather than implied. What IS creditable about the band: two independent publishers reproduce it exactly, to the sen, with no splice — The Star group’s developer directory and the PropertyGuru group’s 2017 review. What is withheld, and — this matters — which KIND of figure each one is, because two different kinds of below-minimum figure exist on this project and treating them alike would be dishonest in opposite directions. KIND ONE: a 2017 DEVELOPER-ERA “starting from” figure that sits BELOW the registry minimum of RM482,888. It is carried by ONE independent publisher, The Star group, in a nine-year-old launch article — and the same publisher’s own developer directory simultaneously prints the registry band correctly, to the sen. One publisher, two figures, one of them below the register; the honest reading is a launch-era teaser price superseded by the registered band. The figure and the size of the gap appear nowhere on this page, because printing a gap beside a published minimum reconstructs the withheld number. That same 2017 article also refers to inducement packages; nothing about them is reproduced here. KIND TWO: a 2026 RESALE asking floor below the same registry minimum, together with a per-square-foot band and a rental “from” figure, all on one portal record. All are withheld — and the thing to say instead of the number is that this is a completely different animal from Kind One. On a scheme certified in May 2021 and carrying 84 live sale listings, a secondary-market asking floor below a 2017-era registered minimum is UNREMARKABLE and says nothing whatever about the developer. If the page withheld both figures without saying which kind each is, the withholding itself would read as concealing a defect that does not exist. KIND THREE: an asking band on the UNLICENSED commercial component. Akasa Business Park has no registration, no permit and no filed price, so the below-minimum test is INAPPLICABLE to it — there is no statutory minimum to be below. It is still not a statutory price and still not a sale-and-purchase price, so nothing from it appears here either. For the publisher counts above to be honest, the collapsing rule this page uses is stated: The Edge group’s domains and its content interface count as ONE publisher; PropertyGuru and iProperty count as ONE; The Star group’s two domains count as ONE; the fourth is a separate portal. Independent publishers carrying this project at all: FOUR. Where a real figure comes from: on the primary market, the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery — and this is not a primary market. On a completed scheme reached through resale, the real figure is the transacted price for the specific unit, which means a valuation, a title search, the management corporation’s accounts and an agent who will show you the register row line by line. Ask Louis.

How this page was built, and its limits

Everything above is either traced to a named published source or marked as not published. The spine is the public KPKT TEDUH register licensee record for developer 14619 and the project record 14619-1 with its full permit history, read 13 October 2026. Seven limits are worth stating plainly. First, and it governs everything else: there is no filed advertisement for this project in any reachable path form, so the register is the only statutory source, there is no second generation to diff, and the whole “NOT FILED” list follows from that one absence rather than from seven separate failures to look. Second, one HIMS path form is robots-disallowed to this tool rather than returning a 404, so it is recorded as UNCHECKED and inconclusive, never as clean — and it is the one route that could still turn iklan: [] into a filed document and rewrite the tenure, restriction, chargee and price sections at a stroke. Third, the green-certification register truncates on three of its four tiers, so where this page says there is no further entry it means no entry in the reachable portion; the one genuinely clean negative is the top tier, and the Bronze entry list spans the wrong window for a 2021 certificate. Fourth, the licensee’s company registration number is not obtainable from here, and the exact doors that were tried are named above so nobody re-walks them — including the parent’s annual reports, whose subsidiary note sits in the financial-statements section this tool does not reach. Fifth, the main contractor, the contract sum and the commencement date are published nowhere, so the contractor-float check cannot be run on this project at all; the employer is a private special-purpose company of a listed parent and the contract evidently fell below the parent’s own announcement threshold. Sixth, the mukim rests on a single source, the project quantity surveyor, and the register has no mukim field on this record; the approving authority rests on jurisdictional inference rather than a plan prefix, and both are labelled that way wherever they appear. Seventh, no imagery of publishable grade exists on any reachable host, so this page carries none and gives the five reasons above rather than a picture with a caption nobody can stand behind. And the limit that is a credit rather than a caveat: because the developer publishes no statutory panel, there is no stale panel to contradict the register — no below-floor price table on its own website, no permit validity printed into a licence field, no fabricated validity. The whole family of developer-panel errors this series keeps finding cannot occur here. Both halves of that are true at once, and both are printed.

AKASA, Cheras South — the questions a buyer actually asks

Other pages built the same way — and the developments this page deliberately keeps separate

Published 13 October 2026 · last verified 13 October 2026. Sources: the public KPKT TEDUH register licensee record for developer code 14619 and the project record 14619-1 with its full advertising-permit history; the HIMS filed-document server, on which nothing exists for this project in any reachable path form; the GreenRE certification register across all four tiers plus one certification-entry list; the listed parent’s audited annual reports for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025; a Singapore Exchange corporate-announcement appendix; the project quantity surveyor’s own published project description; the public reference articles on Kajang Municipal Council and on Cheras; and the named press and portal records cited above, including IQI’s own land guide on foreign ownership. No figure on this page comes from any other development, any other licensee or any other project of this group. · Marketing information, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the register, the title and a current valuation before you commit.