Bayu Timur @ Berjaya Park, Seksyen 32, Shah Alam — 518 freehold condominium units on one licence, with two filed generations that disagree

Six things about Bayu Timur that no brochure and no portal will tell you

This page exists for the awkward facts. Each card below is sourced, and each one changes what a buyer should ask at the sales gallery.

The four filed types, A to D — and the fixture schedule the dual-key claim turns on

Built-ups are identical across both filed brochure generations and the developer’s own microsite. Bedroom and bathroom counts are the developer’s own table, corroborated by the register’s bilik: 3 and bilikAir: 2, 3, 4. The filed price band is per block, not per type, so no type has a filed minimum or maximum of its own. The plans below are the developer’s own Type A to Type D plans, confirmed by their CMS titles and by the captions the microsite prints above them.

Type A — 1,000 sq ft

3 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms · 3 WC · 1 kitchen sink · 2 or 3 car park bays

1,000 sq ft filed3 bed2 bathBlocks A&B band RM591,360–RM729,792Schedule H

Filed fixture schedule: 3 WC, 3 wash basins, 2 showers, 1 kitchen sink, 16 lighting points, 19 power points, 4 air-conditioning points, 2 water-heater points, 5 ceiling-fan points, 1 doorbell point, 1 data point. Note two things. The WC count exceeds the bathroom count — 3 against 2 — which is consistent with a powder room, and that is what ericanfly describes. And there is one more air-conditioning point than there are bedrooms, so living-area air-conditioning is a filed point rather than an upgrade. The earlier filing gave this type 14 lighting and 18 power points.

Ask for the Type A plan and the SPA schedule

Type B — 1,100 sq ft

3 bedrooms · 3 bathrooms · 4 WC · 1 kitchen sink · 2 or 3 car park bays

1,100 sq ft filed3 bed3 bathBlocks A&B band RM591,360–RM729,792Schedule H

Filed fixture schedule: 4 WC, 4 wash basins, 3 showers, 1 kitchen sink, 18 lighting points, 18 power points, 4 air-conditioning points, 3 water-heater points, 5 ceiling-fan points, 1 doorbell point, 1 data point. Again 4 WC against 3 bathrooms, consistent with a powder room. ericanfly describes this type as 3 bed, 3 bath plus powder room, conventional — that is an agent site, not a developer surface. The earlier filing gave 16 lighting and 17 power points.

Ask for the Type B plan and the SPA schedule

Type C — 1,200 sq ft

3 bedrooms · 4 bathrooms · 4 WC · 1 kitchen sink in the current filing, 2 in the earlier one

1,200 sq ft filed3 bed4 bathBlocks C&D band RM585,200–RM794,170dual-key: unsupported by the live filing

Filed fixture schedule: 4 WC, 4 wash basins, 4 showers, 1 kitchen sink, 20 lighting points, 23 power points, 4 air-conditioning points, 4 water-heater points, 5 ceiling-fan points, 1 doorbell point, 1 data point. This is the type where the dual-key question bites. The earlier filed brochure recorded two kitchen sinks for this type; the current, live filing records one. ericanfly calls it 3 plus utility, 4 bath, dual-key, low-rise only — an attribution that appears on no developer surface and in no filing, and which also contradicts the press, since Types C and D are the Blocks C and D price band, the 24-storey towers. Get the plan and the SPA schedule before you treat this as a dual-key unit.

Ask whether Type C is genuinely dual-key

Type D — 1,280 sq ft

3 bedrooms · 4 bathrooms · 4 WC · 1 kitchen sink in the current filing, 2 in the earlier one

1,280 sq ft filed3 bed4 bathBlocks C&D band RM585,200–RM794,170dual-key: unsupported by the live filing

Filed fixture schedule: 4 WC, 4 wash basins, 4 showers, 1 kitchen sink, 21 lighting points, 23 power points, 4 air-conditioning points, 4 water-heater points, 5 ceiling-fan points, 1 doorbell point, 1 data point. Same sink movement as Type C: two in the earlier filing, one in the current one. The largest filed type, and the one that carries the project’s filed maximum of RM794,170 — which is 39.7% of the Selangor foreign-buyer floor. EdgeProp and iProperty print this type as 1,279 sq ft against the filed 1,280, and vivahomes prints it as 3 bed / 1 bath against the developer’s own 4. Both are errors.

Ask for the Type D plan and the SPA schedule

The dual-key arithmetic, stated plainly. A dual-key unit is two self-contained dwellings behind one entrance door, and in a Malaysian filed fixture schedule that shows up as two kitchen sinks. The developer’s current, live filing records one kitchen sink per unit in all four types. Its own earlier filing recorded two in Types C and D. Against that, Berjaya Land’s Annual Report 2025 describes 3 and 3+1 bedrooms (dual-key concept), and the developer’s press release plus The Edge, The Sun, The Star, BusinessToday and DagangNews all sell dual-key layouts on selected units without naming a single type. The filing does not support the claim; the earlier filing did. This page does not assert dual-key and does not assert its absence — it tells you to read the plan and the SPA schedule first.

Portal errors on this project, named. EdgeProp and iProperty invent type codes A1, B1, C1 and D1 that exist in no filing; state all 3 bed, 3 bath against a filed 2 / 3 / 4 / 4; print Type D as 1,279 sq ft against the filed 1,280; and label the whole scheme a serviced apartment against four filed Kondominium surfaces. Type codes A to D, built-ups and bathroom counts on this page are the filed and developer-published ones.

A warning about plans found elsewhere. The developer’s own microsite media library also holds eleven floor plans whose titles read Type A through Type N. Bayu Timur has four types, A to D. Those eleven belong to another scheme and were left in the library — template contamination inside the developer’s own CMS. The four plans above are the correct set. If somebody sends you a Type G or a Type K for Bayu Timur, it is not this project.

No metric built-up is published by any source. If you need square metres, ask — any conversion is ours, not the developer’s.

Developer’s own plans, map and renders — captioned only as far as the sources go

Why these captions are so thin, and why that is the honest answer. The developer’s microsite is a WordPress site with an open media API, so project attribution for every image above is certain. But the slider renders carry a CMS title that is only the file name, empty alt text and no printed caption. There is no render of the building, the pool, the lobby or any facility anywhere on this project with a published subject. Rather than guess, this page says nothing — an invented caption is how a client ends up shown the wrong scheme’s swimming pool.

Also deliberately excluded. Another project’s location map (Tun-Razak-Exchange-Location-Map) sitting in the same library; the eleven Type A to Type N plans belonging to a different scheme; six theme placeholder files; two undated WhatsApp images with no title and no alt; seven highlight tiles at 419 px beside which the page prints no text at all, so their claims cannot be read; the 37 numbered facility icons; and the unlabelled golden crown graphic, which has no award, no rating and no issuer attached anywhere on the developer’s site. It is decoration, and this page does not let it read as an award device. Two marketing banner assets whose own CMS titles embed a cash figure were also excluded under the compliance rule set out in the register block below, and those figures appear nowhere on this page.

A third-party 360-degree virtual tour is linked from the developer’s microsite at vr.properly.com.my. It is not a Berjaya-hosted asset and nothing on it is reproduced here.

Where Bayu Timur actually is, and the distances nobody publishes

Settled from filings: the local authority is Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA), from the Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan field of both filed brochures and the filed newspaper advertisement; the district is Daerah Klang, from the KPKT register; the section is Seksyen 32, from the building-plan reference MBSA/BGN/BB/600-1(PB)/SEK.32/0012-2023. So it is MBSA, not MPK and not MBPJ, and it is Daerah Klang, not Daerah Petaling. Both are correct at once: Seksyen 32 is Shah Alam city inside Daerah Klang, and no portal explains that.

BAYU TIMUR — KPKT project 6700-8, licensed to Pakar Angsana Sdn Bhd (220249-A)

Read 9 October 2026 from teduh.kpkt.gov.my/api/projek-swasta/6700-8, from the current filed advertisement particulars at hims.kpkt.gov.my/files/6700/P45/P45-20260706-00019807/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf, from the earlier filed brochure and newspaper advertisement at hims.kpkt.gov.my/files/6700/6700-8/, and from the developer’s own statutory block on bayutimur.com. You can run every one of these checks yourself — teduh.kpkt.gov.my, then projek swasta, then 6700-8.

Filed Baki Unit, read carefully. The current filing prints Block A & B 87 units and Block C & D 409 units. Those are units REMAINING, not totals — implying 9 of 96 and 13 of 422 taken, 22 of 518. No as-at date is printed; the HIMS path is dated 6 July 2026, and the same figures also sit on the microsite. Treat the take-up as undated. The developer publishes no take-up percentage, and Berjaya Property’s own quarterly reports do not mention this project at all.

Filed particulars change. Verify at teduh.kpkt.gov.my and against the SPA and price list at the sales gallery before you rely on anything on this page. Nothing here is a price list, a quotation or an offer.

Foreign buyers: 0 of 518 units qualify, and nobody anywhere says so

This is the single most useful line on this page for a foreign enquirer, so it gets its own heading. Selangor sets a minimum purchase price of RM2,000,000 for a foreign buyer in Zone 1, which includes Daerah Klang, this project’s district, and restricts foreigners to strata and gated landed strata titles. Three published sources agree on the figure: propcashflow.my, citing Pekeliling PTG Selangor and the PTG zone scheme; IQI’s own buyer guide at iqiglobal.com; and housingwatch.my, which puts Zones 1 to 3 all at RM2,000,000. PTG Selangor itself publishes no circular on a reachable page, so this page cites the published consensus of three sources and tells you plainly: confirm the current threshold with PTG Selangor in writing before you act.

Tested against the filed band, per block: Blocks A and B top out at RM729,792 and fall short by RM1,270,208. Blocks C and D top out at RM794,170 and fall short by RM1,205,830. The most expensive unit in the project reaches 39.7% of the threshold. Even the earlier filing’s RM750,000 ceiling made no difference. 0 of 518 units clear the floor, in every block, in every type, at every price point — and not one marketing source, portal or press report mentions it. For reference, Kuala Lumpur’s comparable floor is RM1,000,000 with EPU consent, and this project would fail that too, by RM205,830 at its filed maximum. If you are buying as a foreign national, ask Louis for the Selangor and KL projects that do qualify rather than wasting a gallery visit here. It also means this project sells entirely into the Malaysian owner-occupier and local-investor market, which is consistent with the group chief executive’s own line to The Sun that demand here is mostly for people who want to live in Kota Kemuning.

Two filed generations under one serial, and the six fields on which they disagree

Both HIMS path forms resolve for this project — the older files/6700/6700-8/ form, carrying a brochure and a newspaper advertisement, and the newer files/6700/P45/P45-20260706-00019807/ form dated 6 July 2026. That is two filed generations of advertisement particulars for one project, and they disagree on six substantive fields.

• Scheme name: the earlier brochure is headed KONDOMINIUM BEBAS — a generic descriptor, not a project name, with Bayu Timur appearing once in the whole document, inside the LOKASI block — against Bayu Timur in the current filing and the register. The earlier newspaper advertisement for the same generation is headed Bayu Timur, so the developer’s own brochure and its own newspaper advertisement disagree within one generation.
• Developer licence suffix: 1120(R) against 1120(A).
• Land charge (Bebanan Tanah): Tiada — unencumbered — against Gadaian (Affin Bank Berhad).
• Expected completion: Februari 2027 against September 2029 — a 31-month movement.
• Block C and D price maximum: RM750,000 against RM794,170 — up RM44,170, or 5.9%.
• Kitchen sinks in Types C and D: 2 each against 1 each.

Smaller movements in the same comparison: the APDL field went from blank to a literal XXXX placeholder with a validity period attached; lighting points rose in every type (14/16/18/19 to 16/18/20/21) and power points in three (18/17/22/22 to 19/18/23/23); a Diskaun Bumiputera field that was absent in the earlier filing is present in the current one, and its value is withheld on this page under Louis’s compliance rule; and the printed sales contact changed from +603 2727 7503 to 011-1722 7010.

What the two filings agree on: the approving authority, the plan reference, the licensee and company number, the filed building type Kondominium, 5 and 24 storeys, 96 and 422 units, 2 atau 3 car-park bays, the whole Block A and B price band, all four built-ups, and the WC, wash-basin, shower, air-conditioning, water-heater, ceiling-fan and data-point counts. They agree on the hardware and disagree on the money, the charge, the date and the kitchens.

The licence covers 518 of 518 — and that is a point in the developer’s favour

Walking teduh.kpkt.gov.my/api/projek-swasta/6700-<n> from -1 to -10 gives: 6700-1, -2, -4, -5, -6 Taman Perindustrian Berjaya and Taman Berjaya phases with permits from 1999 to 2005; 6700-3 Berjaya Park, 110 double-storey terraces, Jadual G, CCC 26 May 2008; 6700-7 Hazel 2, 87 double-storey terraces, Jadual G, CCC 19 August 2010; 6700-8 Bayu Timur, 518 units, Schedule H, current permit; then 6700-9 and 6700-10 both 404. The register’s own bilanganProjek: 8 corroborates the stopping point exactly.

So the APDL covers 518 of 518 marketed units. Every unit marketed sits inside the registered phase, all 518 are Schedule H, and there is no unregistered component, no non-HDA 1966 office suite, no strata-office parcel and no lease-only block. There is also no registered affordable (Rumah Selangorku) component under licence serial 6700 — if an affordable obligation attaches to this site it is not registered under this serial, and no source mentions one. On this site that is unusual and worth stating plainly: most projects covered here have a gap between what is marketed and what the licence covers. This one does not.

Two things to keep straight while you are in the register. Licence 6700 also carries the Berjaya Park terraces (6700-3) and Hazel 2 (6700-7) — different, completed schemes under one licence serial, not phases of Bayu Timur. And propertyguru.com.my/condo/berjaya-park-shah-alam-apartments-6485 is a different, existing development in the same Berjaya Park, not this project.

The approved extension: +12 months, not consumed, and effectively disclosed

The register carries pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 12 Bulan and tempohPembinaanBaharu: 48 Bulan. With the first SPA dated 15 November 2025 and an original 36-month Schedule H period, vacant possession moves from 15 November 2028 to 15 November 2029.

Has it been consumed? No. The project is 5.00% built with status Lancar, no CCC and no VP filed, and the revised date is three years away. Nothing here is a delay yet.

And the developer deserves explicit credit on disclosure. Its own current filed brochure, and its own microsite, print September 2029 — about ten months past the original SPA date and about two months inside the revised one. That is a developer publishing a date consistent with the extension rather than one it has already lost, which is not what this site usually finds.

What nobody publishes. The Edge, The Sun, BusinessToday and DagangNews all print early 2029; EdgeProp prints 2029. No source anywhere prints 15 November 2029, and none mentions that an extension was approved at all. If you are reading a liquidated-damages clause, the date it runs from is the one in your SPA, not the one in a newspaper. This page draws no general rule from the presence of an extension — it reports this project’s own values and nothing more.

Build progress, and the one open question about it

The register’s four component rows all read peratus: 5.00 with komponen: Lancar, read 9 October 2026. The Sun reported on 4 December 2025 that the project was in its substructure phase, with piling works nearing completion. Ten months separate those two readings and the register figure has not moved off 5%. Both facts are stated here with their dates and no conclusion is drawn — a register percentage is a reported figure on a schedule, not a site survey, and the status field still reads on schedule. No developer progress statement exists, and the microsite carries no dated site photograph. If progress matters to your financing, ask for a dated site photograph and the architect’s certificate of progress in writing.

Green rating and awards: nothing, stated precisely

GreenRE. All four tier registers were read separately on 9 October 2026 at greenre.org/iframe/project_details. Platinum returned 95 rows and does not truncate — its last row is complete — so Platinum is a clean negative. Gold (130 rows), Silver (141 rows) and Bronze (332 rows) all truncate on their last row, so for those three the finding is no entry in the reachable portion, which is not the same thing as a clean negative. Those are the exact words, and they are the honest ones. No entry appears under the licensee Pakar Angsana Sdn Bhd in any tier. GBI’s certified-buildings directory 404s and the replacement site is robots-disallowed here — inconclusive, never a negative.

Nine look-alike register rows were checked and refused, every one a different licensee or project: Bayu @ Mori Park (Bronze provisional, Mori Park Sdn Bhd — OSK’s Seksyen 13 project, which has its own separate page on this site, and its rating does not migrate here); Sunway Bayu (Ipoh); Bayu Hills; Iringan Bayu phases 1 to 27 (Seremban); Residensi Khaya (licensee Bayu Mantap Sdn Bhd — Bayu is in the developer’s name); three Gamuda Land (Kemuning) projects (Kemuning is in the developer’s name, different township); Pusat Komersial Alam Kemuning; six Shah Alam 2 Sdn Bhd phases; and two Shah Alam logistics hubs.

Three Berjaya-group rows exist and none of them attaches to this project: The Tropika Bukit Jalil, Bronze FINAL, 1 July 2025, licensee Berjaya Golf Resort Bhd; Oaka Residences / Residensi Oak, Gold PROVISIONAL, 24 June 2024, licensee Berjaya Hartanah Berhad; and Jesselton Courtyard, Gold provisional, 15 October 2025, licensee Berjaya Land Development Sdn Bhd. Berjaya Land’s own Annual Report 2025 calls Oak’s rating a GreenRE Gold Award and says the project is constructed to fulfil the Gold-Rated GreenRE standard, while the register shows that rating as PROVISIONAL — a design-stage rating, not a certification of a built building. Provisional is not certified, and the group’s own wording overstates it. The one it states accurately is Tropika’s Bronze, which the register confirms as FINAL. None of this belongs to Bayu Timur and none of it appears on this page as if it did.

Bayu Timur’s own green position is the cleanest possible version of the finding: the developer makes no green claim at all. No logo, no aligned with wording, no targeting statement — nothing on the microsite, nothing in either filed brochure, nothing in the filed newspaper advertisement, nothing in the press release and nothing in any of the six press reports. There is therefore nothing to qualify.

Awards: none, and none is claimed. No awards section or accolade strip on the microsite, no awards page on berjayaproperties.com, nothing in berjaya.com/berjaya-property/, no award item in the 20 most recent Berjaya Property newsroom entries, and the only award in Berjaya Land’s Annual Report 2025 for the financial year is Aftersales Retailer of the Year (UK), won by H.R. Owen’s Bentley Surrey operations — a motor-dealership award in the group’s UK automotive arm, with no property connection whatsoever. No project award, no township award, no developer award at property level. And the microsite’s unlabelled golden crown graphic carries no award, no rating and no issuer anywhere on the site. It is decoration, and the strapline Another Prestigious Project By: is the developer’s own wording with no accolade behind it. This page does not let either read as an award device.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction, and this site’s hard rule. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotional package, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera percentage, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate and no yield or ROI projection appears anywhere on this page, in any language, and none was taken from any IQI sales file. The only price figures here are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minima and maxima from the legally filed advertisement particulars, which the public KPKT register reproduces to the ringgit across its four component rows — always labelled as such, and always with the line that they are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

Specifically withheld on this project, and this one needs care:
• A headline from figure that sits below the filed statutory minimum of RM585,200. The figure is not recorded on this page in any form, and no arithmetic on it is printed. What is published is only that it exists and how widely: it is carried by four genuinely independent publishers — The Edge Communications, Sun Media, Star Media Group and DagangNews — plus the developer’s own press release, with The Edge’s two surfaces counted once because they are one publisher.
• A per-type price table on vivahomes.my. Worse: its own header figure and its Type A and Type B rows sit below the filed minima, and its Type D row sits below the filed Block C and D maximum. Four of its five figures are irreconcilable with the filing. The entire table is withheld.
• A separate error worth naming on its own. EdgeProp’s own portal record prints a figure that is compliant — it is not below the filed floor — but it belongs to the wrong component: it is the Block A and B minimum, the higher of the two filed minima, presented as the project’s starting price. The project minimum is the Block C and D figure. So The Edge Communications publishes two different starting prices on its own two surfaces, and the compliant one is attached to the wrong block.
• The Bumiputera field. The current filing carries a Diskaun Bumiputera field and the developer’s own microsite prints it. The field’s existence is stated here. Its value is not, in either language.
• Two of the developer’s own media assets. Their CMS titles embed a cash figure. Those figures appear nowhere on this page and the assets are excluded from the image set entirely.

Why the filed band can be trusted here, and why the lower figure cannot. Run the arithmetic on the filed band: 96 units at the Block A and B minimum plus 422 at the Block C and D minimum is RM303,724,960; at the maxima it is RM405,199,772. The launch GDV of RM398 million is 98.2% of the statutory maximum envelope, and the Annual Report 2025 figure of RM308 million is 101.4% of the minimum envelope. A project whose announced GDV sits at 98% of its own statutory maximum envelope cannot have an entry price materially below its statutory minimum. That is why this page publishes the filed band, says the lower headline figure cannot be reconciled with the filing or with the developer’s own GDV, and publishes no from price at all.

If a price matters to you, the only authoritative versions are the price list and the SPA at the sales gallery. Ask Louis and he will walk you through both, including anything beyond the filed band — which is exactly the conversation this page is designed to start rather than pre-empt.

Not published, therefore not on this page

Everything below is a question a buyer will ask that no reachable source answers. It is on the page because an honest gap is more useful than a confident guess, and because this is the list Louis will take to the developer.

Land and title. The lot or PT number — nowhere: not in either brochure, not in the newspaper advertisement, not in the register, not on the microsite, and there is no Bursa contract announcement to supply it. The mukim — nowhere (Daerah Klang and Seksyen 32 are settled; the mukim is not). Keluasan Tanah as a filed figure — omitted from both brochures, and the register prints keluasan: 0 mps; the 8.51 acres is a company annual-report figure, not a filing. Sekatan kepentingan — not printed on any surface. Master-title and strata-subdivision status — not published.

Building and plans. A distinct no. kelulusan pelan bangunan — only the MBSA No. Rujukan exists. The development order (kebenaran merancang) reference and date — not published. Total car-park bays — nowhere, only 2 atau 3 per unit, with no per-type allocation and no visitor-bay count. Which blocks are A, B, C and D on the ground; which stacks have the golf view; the floor-by-floor unit mix; unit numbering; the orientation of any type. Lift count and lift-to-unit ratio. Whether Blocks A and B and Blocks C and D form one management corporation or two. Metric built-ups — no source publishes any.

Price, cost and schedule. Any price breakdown per type from a developer or filed source — the filed band is per block, so no type has a filed minimum or maximum of its own. The maintenance fee from any developer or filed source — the 28 sen psf including sinking fund is The Edge and DagangNews only, dated 4 December 2025, and appears on no developer surface. The sinking-fund rate separately, utility deposits and legal-fee arrangements. Progress as at any date other than the register’s 5.00%. Take-up from the developer — only the undated filed Baki Unit figures, and the parent’s own quarterly reports do not mention the project.

Contractors and consultants. Main contractor, piling contractor, contract sum and contract award date — nothing. No Bursa announcement, no quantity surveyor record, no builder’s project page. On other projects covered here a contractor announcement has supplied the lot number and the employer’s registration number; here there is none at all. Architect, C&S engineer, M&E engineer, landscape architect and interior designer — none named anywhere.

Entities and compliance. Pakar Angsana’s new-format 13-digit company number. The holder of the 20% minority in Pakar Angsana. The HDA 1966 housing-development account number and bank — the chargee, Affin Bank Berhad, is filed; the HDA account is not. Whether the Selangor affordable-housing obligation applies to this site and, if so, where it is discharged — nothing; no affordable component is registered under licence serial 6700. Note that ehartanah.lphs.gov.my is JavaScript-driven and returned unrelated rows, and kuotalphs.selangor.gov.my returned a server error — inconclusive, never a negative, and both registries cover affordable schemes only, so a market-priced condominium is not expected in them.

Location. Any distance to any rail station. Distances to the six named highways — all named, none measured. Bus routes or feeder service. Whether the two acres of greenery is public or private, and whether it is gazetted open space.

Bayu Timur @ Berjaya Park, Shah Alam — frequently asked questions

Also worth seeing

Published 9 October 2026 · Last verified 9 October 2026 against KPKT TEDUH project 6700-8 and licensee record 6700, the current filed KPKT HIMS advertisement particulars at files/6700/P45/P45-20260706-00019807/, the earlier filed brochure and newspaper advertisement at files/6700/6700-8/, the developer’s own statutory block on bayutimur.com, Berjaya Land Berhad’s Annual Report 2025 and its FY2026 Q2 and Q4 quarterly reports, the four GreenRE tier registers, and the published press of 17 November and 4 December 2025. This is marketing information, not an offer. Filed particulars change — verify at teduh.kpkt.gov.my before you rely on anything here.