e.Sentral SmartCity, Seksyen U5, Subang Bestari, Shah Alam — filed as SENTRAL ELIT
Phase 1 of a 10-acre leasehold mixed development: 774 filed serviced apartments, plus 186 “LoSo” units and 13 retail units that are not in the filing at all. The licensed developer, and your SPA counterparty, is HCK BESTARI SDN BHD (201701010085 / 1224250-P) — a joint venture in which the Selangor state development corporation PKNS holds 30%. The project is marketed as “Damansara West” and as near Kwasa Damansara; its filed site-plan reference is Seksyen U5, which is Subang Bestari, not Kwasa Damansara.
I reply with the filed particulars and the registry record, not a brochure.
e.Sentral SmartCity at a glance — fifteen facts and the source for each
Every row below carries the document that published it. Where the developer’s own two statutory blocks disagree, both values are given. Where nobody published a figure, the row says so instead of filling the gap.
- Filed scheme name
- SENTRAL ELITThe filed PDF’s own narrative opens “Sentral Elit merupakan projek yang dibangunkan oleh…”. The statutory block itself carries no scheme-name field at all, so the name comes from the narrative text of the same filed document, corroborated by PropertyGuru’s “Sentral Elit” record whose 774 units, 29 storeys, leasehold tenure, developer and 2027 completion all match the filing line for line. “e.Sentral SmartCity” is the marketing name, and “SmartCity” appears in no filing.
- Licensed developer · your SPA counterparty
- HCK BESTARI SDN BHD201701010085 (1224250-P). The name is printed as Pemaju in both statutory blocks; the registration number is not inside either block and comes from the microsite’s own copyright line and the brochure’s separate Developer section. Not HCK Capital Group Bhd, which is the listed parent and not the licensee.
- Who owns the licensee
- PKNS 30% · Binary Binajaya 70%HCK Capital holds 70% of Binary Binajaya, giving it an effective 49% — The Edge, reporting the Bursa announcement, which says in terms that HCK Bestari “is a joint venture, not a PKNS subsidiary”. The developer’s own brochure instead calls HCK Bestari “a wholly owned subsidiary of HCK Capital Group Bhd”. Who holds the remaining ~21% effective interest is not published by anyone.
- Where it actually is
- Seksyen U5, Subang Bestari, Shah AlamThe filed site-plan reference is MBSA/PRG/KMPB/SEK: U5/0193-3-2023 — the string encodes the section. Kwasa Damansara is Seksyen U4. Mukim Sungai Buloh (EdgeProp). Marketed as “Damansara West” and as near Kwasa Damansara, which is fair; it is not in Kwasa Damansara.
- Approving authority
- Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA)Printed identically in both statutory blocks. Building-plan reference MBSA. BGN. 600-3/5/39. No source names MBPJ, and Seksyen U5 is unambiguously Shah Alam. Daerah is not a filed field on either block; Petaling is the district of Mukim Sungai Buloh and is given here as inference, not as a filed value.
- Filed building type
- Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan — serviced apartmentJenis rumah / bangunan in both statutory blocks. propertysifu.my classifies it as a condominium, which it is not. The distinction matters: a serviced apartment sits on commercial-titled land and normally carries commercial quit rent and commercial utility tariffs.
- Units filed
- 774Jumlah unit 774, and the filed per-type schedule sums to 774 (155 + 35 + 440 + 144 — my arithmetic). Phase 1 actually sells 973 (774 + 186 LoSo + 13 retail, the developer’s own figures). Both towers would be 1,548 residential units (hckgroup.my). All three numbers circulate undifferentiated: say which one you mean.
- Units outside the Housing Development Act
- 199186 LoSo units + 13 retail units. Not one of them appears in the filing, and the licence and APDL are filed against 774 units only. See the Housing Development Act section below for exactly what a buyer of one of those gives up.
- Storeys
- 29Bilangan tingkat 29 in both statutory blocks and in PropertyGuru’s “Sentral Elit” record. Residential floor plans are labelled Level 10, Level 11 and Levels 12–28 (brochure). What occupies Levels 1–9 is not published by anyone. One agent site says 40 storeys; it is wrong on almost every other number too and is not used on this page.
- Tenure
- Pajakan — leaseholdPegangan tanah: Pajakan in both blocks. The lease expiry date is NOT PRINTED in either statutory block. One portal publishes “leasehold to 2113” with no filed corroboration (propertysifu.my); it is recorded here as unverified and is not used as a fact. Sekatan kepentingan is also NOT PRINTED.
- Charge on the land
- Gadaian — OCBC Bank (Malaysia) BerhadBebanan tanah in both statutory blocks. A charge is normal on a development parcel; it is listed here because the filing lists it.
- Filed statutory price range
- RM270,000 – RM597,000Filed statutory Unit Selling Price, minimum to maximum: RM270,000 – RM597,000, exactly as filed in the statutory advertisement particulars and reprinted identically in the developer’s own brochure block. It covers the 774 serviced apartments only. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. 155 of the 774 units are filed as Mampu Milik — affordable — under the Selangor SAMM scheme administered by LPHS. There is no statutory price of any kind for the 186 LoSo or 13 retail units, because the Act does not reach them.
- Layouts, from the statutory schedule
- 554 · 678 · 815 sq ftFour filed sizes across six type codes: 51.47 m² (Types A, A1, A2, A3), 62.99 m² (Type B) and 75.72 m² (Type C). Take built-ups from the statutory schedule only. The same filed PDF’s narrative pages print “550 / 673 / 815 Meter Persegi” — the unit is wrong and two of the three numbers are wrong. The sq ft figures above are the developer’s own and reconcile with the filed m² to the nearest foot.
- Expected completion
- September 2027 or October 2028Thirteen months apart, inside the developer’s own two statutory blocks. Tarikh dijangka siap is September 2027 on the KPKT HIMS filed advertisement particulars copy and October 2028 in the developer’s own brochure PDF block. Three portals add Q4 2028, Q3 2028 and 2029. This is the field that fixes the Schedule H delivery obligation, so it is the single most consequential disagreement on the project.
- Licence and permit
- Licence current · APDL currentDeveloper’s licence 30636/12-2028/0311(N), valid 07/12/2023 – 12/06/2028 as printed. APDL 30636-1/10-2027/0924(N)-(S), valid 10/10/2024 – 10/09/2027 — which means it is current today, with about eleven months to run. The KPKT-held copy leaves the permit number and its validity as literal
XXXXX-X/XX-XXXX/XXXXplaceholders; the real serial is printed by the developer’s own brochure and independently transcribed by propertysifu.my. - Green rating
- GreenRE Silver — PROVISIONAL, 05/05/2025From GreenRE’s own public register, which names the project, the developer, the rating, the date and the status word. Provisional is a design-stage award, not a completed-building certification, and the rating is Silver. No Gold or Platinum row exists for this project, and GBI has no record of it.
Jump to what you came for
This page is organised the way a buyer actually asks questions — starting with the two that matter most here: which units the law protects, and where the project actually is.
Phase 1 sells 973 units. The law protects 774 of them.
The developer’s own figures for Phase 1 are 774 serviced apartments + 186 “LoSo” units + 13 retail units = 973. The developer’s licence and its APDL are filed against the 774 serviced apartments only. The other 199 units sit outside the Housing Development Act entirely — and they are precisely the units for which no built-up area, no unit count per type, no level, no title type and no price is published by anyone, including the developer. This is not a gap in my research. It is the structure of the product.
What the 774 serviced apartments get
A licensed developer (30636/12-2028/0311(N)), a filed APDL, a filed per-type price schedule, and the statutory Schedule H sale contract — which brings statutory liquidated damages for late delivery, a statutory defect liability period, a prescribed progress-payment schedule, and purchase money held in a section 7A housing development account. propertysifu.my states “Schedule H” in terms, and it is the statutory form for a licensed strata housing scheme.
What the 186 LoSo and 13 retail units do not get
No Schedule H. A purely commercial unit needs no developer’s licence and no APDL, so none is filed for them. That means no statutory liquidated damages if delivery is late, no statutory defect liability period, no prescribed progress-payment schedule, and no section 7A protected account for your money. Whatever the developer’s own private contract gives you is what you have. Read that contract before you pay anything.
Why I am confident the split is real
The filed Jumlah unit is 774; the filed per-type schedule sums to 774; the filed jenis bangunan is the single entry Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan; and serial 30636-1 is the only index on licence 30636 that resolves on KPKT HIMS — 30636-2 and 30636-3 both return 404, as do the other advertisement filenames under 30636-1. There is no second, commercial filing hiding behind a neighbouring index. The Act simply does not reach those units.
Nobody says what “LoSo” stands for
The developer’s own LoSo page carries four type letters (D, E, F, G), four images and one marketing line — no definition, no built-up area, no unit count, no level, no title type, no price and no disclaimer. The brochure’s own product list names “LOSO units, serviced apartments, lifestyle and small offices, doorstep retail shops, retail shoplots”. The developer never expands the acronym, and this page will not expand it for them.
The affordable-scheme page offers an office
the developer’s own SAMM page states that an applicant may own one unit of either of two product types: “Pangsapuri Kediaman Komersial” or “Boutique Office”. “Boutique Office” appears in no filing, nowhere else on the developer’s own site, and in no portal record. Whether it is the same product as a LoSo unit is not stated by any source. An office unit is the one thing here that cannot carry Schedule H.
“Type G” means two different things
On the developer’s LoSo page, TYPE G is a LoSo type. On the retail page, the types are G1–G8, G9 and G10–G13. A “Type G” enquiry is ambiguous on the developer’s own website. If you are asking about one, quote the page you saw it on.
There is no statutory price for the 199
The filed statutory price range RM270,000 – RM597,000 covers the 774 serviced apartments and nothing else. Anyone quoting a LoSo or retail price is quoting a figure that has never been filed with KPKT, because KPKT has no jurisdiction over it. The only figures in existence anywhere are a portal’s aggregates: LoSo 450–597 sq ft, retail up to 1,905 sq ft (PropertyGuru’s “e.Sentral SmartCity” record) — areas, not prices, and not the developer’s.
What to ask for, in writing, before you commit
For a LoSo or retail unit: the sale contract itself; the title type (commercial strata is the obvious assumption, but no source states it); the built-up area and the level; the late-delivery remedy; the defect-liability period; and whether your money is held in any protected account. No published source answers a single one of those. Ask me and I will put every one of them to HCK Bestari in writing on your behalf.
Twelve things about this project that do not add up — and the source for each
None of this is rumour. Every item comes from the filed statutory particulars, the developer’s own brochure or website, a certification register, a Bursa-derived news report, or a named portal. Where two of the developer’s own documents disagree, both are shown.
It is not in Kwasa Damansara
The filed site-plan reference is SEK: U5. Kwasa Damansara is Seksyen U4 — the neighbouring schemes there file U4 references, which is checkable. The filed land address in the listed company’s own acquisition announcement is in Seksyen U5, on a road from Subang Bestari’s “Universe” naming theme. The licensee is named after the place: HCK Bestari Sdn Bhd. And the developer’s own brochure prints “MRT KWASA Sentral — 3.3 KM”: a project inside a township does not publish a 3.3 km distance to that township’s own station. Marketing it as “Damansara West” or as near Kwasa Damansara is fair. Calling it “eSentral Kwasa Damansara”, as one agent site does, is not.
Thirteen months, inside the developer’s own two statutory blocks
Tarikh dijangka siap: September 2027 on the KPKT HIMS filed advertisement particulars copy, October 2028 in the developer’s own brochure PDF statutory block. Neither can be dismissed — the HIMS copy is the KPKT-held filing, and the brochure block is the later document because it carries the APDL that HIMS leaves blank. Three portals add Q4 2028, Q3 2028 and 2029; PropertyGuru’s “Sentral Elit” record says 2027 and PropertyGuru’s “e.Sentral SmartCity” record says “target 2028”. Five different answers for the field that fixes your vacant possession date.
KPKT’s copy of the APDL is a literal placeholder
Where the permit number should be, the KPKT-held filing prints XXXXX-X/XX-XXXX/XXXX, and where its validity should be, XX/XX/XXXX – XX/XX/XXXX. The real serial, 30636-1/10-2027/0924(N)-(S) valid 10/10/2024 – 10/09/2027, is printed by the developer’s own brochure and independently transcribed by propertysifu.my — so it is not a brochure typo. The consequence: whether the permit has lapsed cannot be checked from the KPKT copy alone. It has not lapsed. Never pass the licence validity off as the permit validity; they are different dates on different instruments.
“Wholly owned subsidiary” versus a 30% state shareholder
The developer’s brochure calls HCK Bestari “a wholly owned subsidiary of HCK Capital Group Bhd”. The Edge, reporting the Bursa announcement, gives PKNS 30% and Binary Binajaya 70%, with HCK Capital holding 70% of Binary Binajaya for an effective 49%, and states that HCK Bestari “is a joint venture, not a PKNS subsidiary”. EdgeProp calls it an indirect unit and the land purchase a related-party transaction. “Wholly owned” cannot be squared with any of that. For a buyer the Bursa version is the better news — the state development corporation owns 30% of your SPA counterparty — which is exactly why it is odd that the brochure obscures it.
GreenRE Silver, provisional — and an article headline that says gold
GreenRE’s own public register carries one row for this project: e.Sentral SmartCity · HCK Bestari Sdn Bhd · SILVER · 05/05/2025 · (Provisional). There is no row for it under Gold or Platinum. A trade article reports that the project “ha[s] earned GreenRE certification” with no rating and no mention of “provisional” — under a web address that contains the words “gold standard”. The developer’s own material claims only “meeting GreenRE and ESG standards”, and the group’s sustainability and ESG pages do not mention GreenRE at all. The correct statement is the register’s: Silver, provisional, 5 May 2025.
The filing’s own prose contradicts the filing’s own schedule
The narrative pages of the filed PDF describe the one-bedroom types as “550 Meter Persegi”, Type B as “673 Meter Persegi” and Type C as “815 Meter Persegi”. Two problems: the unit is wrong — 550 m² would be a 5,900 sq ft apartment, so these are square feet mislabelled as square metres — and two of the three numbers are wrong even as square feet. The statutory schedule gives 554 and 678. Only Type C (815) matches. This page uses the statutory schedule: 554 / 678 / 815 sq ft. The two statutory blocks also disagree at the second decimal in m² (51.47 vs 51.45, 62.99 vs 63, 75.72 vs 75.69), which is immaterial in feet but proves the two blocks are not copies of one another.
No density figure can honestly be published — and three traps try
Neither statutory block prints keluasan tanah, so density cannot be computed from filed data at all. Three wrong denominators are available to anyone who wants a flattering number: the 62-acre forest next door, which the project does not own; the 10-acre whole site set against a 5-acre filed Phase 1; and 1,548 residential units of which only 774 are filed. On the developer’s own 5-acre Phase 1 figure, 774 apartments is about 155 units per acre and 973 saleable units about 195 per acre — my arithmetic, on a marketing land figure, not a filed one. No source claims this is low density, and it would be false if one did.
A statutory field that disagrees with itself, whose value this page withholds
The Diskaun Bumiputera field is filed as “Tiada” (none) on the KPKT-held copy and is present and populated in the developer’s own brochure statutory block. The field exists, the two filings disagree, and the value is deliberately not published on this page under Louis’s compliance rule — see the disclosure at the foot of the register. It has a real consequence either way, because it bears on whether a quota applies at all, so ask HCK Bestari for it directly and I will put the question in writing.
“Two MRT Stations”, neither of them named
The brochure claims “Two MRT Stations” with no distance and no names. Only one station has a published distance anywhere: MRT Kwasa Sentral, which the developer puts at 3.3 km. PropertyGuru’s “e.Sentral SmartCity” record also lists Kota Damansara MRT and Sungai Buloh KTM as nearby with no distance for either — and Sungai Buloh KTM is commuter rail, not MRT. Which two stations the brochure means is not published. Four sources give the Kwasa Sentral distance as 3.3 km, 3.0 km, “about 3 km” and 1,938 m straight-line; those reconcile, because 1.9 km as the crow flies and 3.0–3.3 km by road is an ordinary ratio.
One portal, one scheme, two project records — one with a 15 km address error
PropertyGuru’s “Sentral Elit” record carries the filed name with correct statutory particulars and the address “Section 13, Shah Alam, 46000”. PropertyGuru’s “e.Sentral SmartCity” record carries the marketing name, a roughly right address and no statutory particulars. Seksyen 13 is the old Shah Alam city core, about 15 km from Seksyen U5. Neither record cross-references the other, so an enquiry arriving from that portal may be looking at either half of one project.
One company in the footer that nobody explains
The microsite’s own copyright line prints HCK Bestari and, directly beneath it, NATURAL DOMAIN SDN BHD 200301013478 (615898-V), of Sri Damansara, Kuala Lumpur. Its role is stated nowhere. It is not the licensee, it is not named in any filing, it is not named in any news report, and the page that prints it does not explain it. A targeted search returned nothing. It is listed here because it is on the developer’s own page and because you would want to know who it is before signing anything.
One award belongs to this project. The rest belong to other buildings
The only project-level award is StarProperty Awards 2025, Honours, The Earth Conscious Award (High-Rise). Everything else in the developer’s accolades list is either corporate (group-level brand, technology and shareholder-return awards) or belongs to edusphere @ Cyberjaya and edumetro @ Subang Jaya — including the 2019 “Best Smart Living Development” and the 2018 “Best Mixed Development”, which read as though they were this project’s and are not. “Award-winning developer” is true at group level; “award-winning project” is true of exactly one award.
What is actually being built, and the dated record behind it
The statistics band carries only figures a named source published, each labelled with what it counts. The facilities schedule is the developer’s own 26-item key, reproduced by its four named zones — because the developer assigns not one facility to a level, and no text schedule of levels exists anywhere. The timeline is built from the two statutory blocks, the Bursa-derived reporting, the GreenRE register and named news coverage.
Facilities — the developer’s own 26-item key, by zone, because no source assigns one to a floor
The brochure prints 26 numbered items keyed to positions on a graphic, grouped into four named zones. No level is assigned to any of them by the developer, by a portal or by anyone else, and the only level labels in the whole brochure (10, 11, 12–28) are on the unit plans. Source: the developer’s own brochure PDF.
Oasis Zone
- Timber decking
- Pool lounge
- Cabana
- Elevated resting area
- Urban garden
- Open green lawn
Social Zone
- Chill-out bench
- Poolside deck
- Waiting deck
- Ramp and staircase
- BBQ area
- BBQ dining area
- Private dining room
Play Zone
- Playground
- Wading pool
- Pet park
- Games room / co-working space — the only item the developer describes as a space, with no fit-out commitment published
Active Zone
- Outdoor gym
- Indoor gym
- Swimming pool
- Elevated jogging track
- Multipurpose courts
- Male and female changing rooms
- Male and female saunas
Outside the four zones, as the brochure lists them
- Guardhouse
- Grand lobby with security system
- EV charging station
Claimed on the microsite but NOT in the brochure’s 26-item key
- “Olympic-length swimming pool” — the brochure’s key says only “swimming pool”, and no dimension is published anywhere by anyone. An unsupported superlative, recorded as such
- Health hub with TCM, dental and vet clinics, “operated by Urban Healthcare Group across three specialised branches” — a named third-party operator with no agreement, no lease and no commencement date published. An intention, not a facility
- 2-acre facility deck — reported at the launch by two named outlets. Its level is not published, and whether it serves both towers is not published either
- 62 acres of greenery — this is the adjacent forest, not a facility of the project. No source names it, gives it a gazette status, or publishes any preservation commitment. Do not read it as permanent
- Smart-home integration — the one marketing claim with real specifics, and they are listed below
The smart-home feature list, as four sources publish it
- Digital control of electricity, locks, cameras and lights from a mobile app
- Car-plate recognition at barrier gates
- Face recognition in lobbies
- Motion sensors to save energy
- EV charging station (also in the brochure’s own key)
- No brand, specification, warranty period or subscription cost is published for any of it
Listed by portals and agent sites, and NOT by the developer
- Business centre, cafeteria, concierge, laundry, mini market, garden, covered parking, security — a portal-generated amenity tick-list. The developer’s own 26-item key contains none of these
- “Gourmet kitchen” — an agent site’s gallery caption. It appears nowhere in the developer’s material
Not published about the building, therefore not on this page
- The level of any one of the 26 facilities, and the level of the facility deck
- What occupies Levels 1 to 9 — the LoSo units, the retail units, the car park and the facility deck are assigned to no floor by anyone
- Car-park bay count and per-type allocation. Both statutory blocks print only “Unit Parkir: 2” and neither says whether 2 is per unit or in total, so the field as filed is uninterpretable. Two in total is absurd for 774 units; two per unit is generous for a 554 sq ft unit. No parking allocation is published on this page
- Number of lifts, lift-to-unit ratio and lift zoning
- Ceiling heights, and whether units are bare, semi-furnished or furnished
- Whether the 155 Mampu Milik units sit in a separate lift core or stack
- The main contractor, the contract sum and the construction programme — none published for this project
- The consultant team: architect, C&S, M&E and QS — none named anywhere
- The project’s GDV — never published, not even at the 2024 launch
Dated record — the two statutory blocks, the Bursa-derived reporting and the certification register
XXXXX-X/XX-XXXX/XXXX and its validity as XX/XX/XXXX.Six filed type codes, four filed sizes — and four marketed products with no schedule at all
The four rows that come first are taken from the statutory schedule of the filed advertisement particulars: units, built-up and the filed Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum for each type. Filed statutory Unit Selling Price, minimum to maximum: RM270,000 – RM597,000, exactly as filed in the statutory advertisement particulars and reprinted identically in the developer’s own brochure block. It covers the 774 serviced apartments only. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The three rows after them are the marketed products the filing does not reach, where the developer publishes a type letter and an image and nothing else.
Types A & A1 — 554 sq ft · Mampu Milik
The affordable component, filed in the statutory schedule as Mampu Milik and labelled in the brochure as “Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Mampu Milik”. Its filed statutory Unit Selling Price is RM270,000 minimum and RM270,000 maximum — a single controlled figure, not a range. The scheme is SAMM, administered by LPHS (Lembaga Perumahan dan Hartanah Selangor), and SAMM is not Rumah Selangorku: the developer’s own SAMM page treats them as different schemes. The “+1” is a utility room, not a second bedroom — the filing’s own room list gives 1 bedroom, 1 utility room, 1 bathroom, living, dining and kitchen. One portal prints “1+1 bedrooms” and an expired listing title advertised 554 sq ft as “2 Bedroom”; both are wrong. No source makes a dual-key claim for any type here, and nothing in the room lists would support one.
Ask about the Mampu Milik eligibilityTypes A2 & A3 — 554 sq ft · open market
The same 51.47 m² plate as Types A and A1, filed on the open market rather than under the affordable scheme, at a filed statutory Unit Selling Price of RM432,000 minimum and RM432,000 maximum. Only 35 of the 774 units are filed in this type — the smallest cohort in the building. Same room list: 1 bedroom, 1 utility room, 1 bathroom, living, dining, kitchen. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Ask for the Type A2 / A3 floor plan
Type B — 678 sq ft
The building’s main product: 440 of the 774 filed units, well over half. Filed built-up 62.99 m² on the KPKT copy and 63 in the brochure block; the developer markets it as 678 sq ft, which agrees with both to the nearest foot (my conversion: 62.99 m² = 678.0 sq ft). The filing’s own room list gives 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, living, dining, kitchen and balcony. Filed statutory Unit Selling Price RM513,000 to RM516,000. Balcony area, ceiling height and fit-out level are not published by anyone. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Ask for the Type B floor planType C — 815 sq ft
The largest filed type, and the only one whose built-up the filed PDF’s own narrative pages get right. Filed 75.72 m² (brochure block: 75.69), marketed as 815 sq ft; my conversion gives 815.1 sq ft, so the figures reconcile. Room list: 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, living, dining, kitchen and balcony. Filed statutory Unit Selling Price RM594,000 to RM597,000, which is the top of the filed band for the whole scheme. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Ask for the Type C floor planLoSo units, Types D / E / F / G — no numbers exist
Not one built-up area, not one unit count per type, not one level and not one price is published for the 186 LoSo units — by the developer or by anyone. The only figures in existence anywhere are a portal’s aggregate of 450–597 sq ft and up to 2 rooms (PropertyGuru’s “e.Sentral SmartCity” record); the 186 total is the developer’s own. The brochure prints no LoSo schedule at all, and the brochure’s statutory block does not reach them. The developer never says what “LoSo” stands for. And because these units are outside the Housing Development Act, there is no statutory price for them and never will be — KPKT has no jurisdiction to file one.
Ask for the LoSo schedule and contractRetail, Types G1–G13 — likewise
Thirteen type codes, which matches the developer’s stated 13 retail units — that match is my arithmetic on the codes and a consistency check, not a published per-type schedule. No built-up area and no level is published for any of them. The only figure anywhere is a portal’s “up to 1,905 sq ft” (PropertyGuru’s “e.Sentral SmartCity” record). Note the clash of labels: TYPE G on the LoSo page and G1–G13 on the retail page are different products on the same developer’s website. Like the LoSo units, these sit outside the Housing Development Act and carry no Schedule H.
Ask for the retail schedule and contractWhat a complete schedule would tell you — and does not, here
Balcony area for Types B and C. Ceiling and floor-to-floor heights. Whether any unit is bare, semi-furnished or furnished, and what kitchen, wardrobe or air-conditioning provision is included. Orientation and facing of any type. Car-park allocation per type — both statutory blocks print only “Unit Parkir: 2” without saying whether 2 is per unit or in total. Lift count and lift-to-unit ratio. Which levels the 186 LoSo and 13 retail units occupy, and what occupies Levels 1 to 9. Whether the 155 Mampu Milik units share a lift core with the open-market units. Every one of those is unanswered by every published source. Ask me and I will put them to HCK Bestari in writing.
Send HCK Bestari my questionsBuilt-up areas are taken from the statutory schedule of the filed advertisement particulars and from the developer’s own sq ft figures, which reconcile to the nearest foot. They are not taken from the filed PDF’s narrative pages, which print “550 / 673 / 815 Meter Persegi” — the wrong unit, and two of the three numbers wrong. Every price above is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum for that type and nothing else. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Artist’s impressions, with the subject of each one stated and graded
All six images come from the developer’s own asset set and every subject above is confirmed by the developer’s own CMS file title — none is inferred from a filename alone. Four further carousel images on the developer’s home page were deliberately not used: their file titles name no subject and the gallery markup carries no caption or alt text, so captioning them would mean guessing, and this page does not guess at an image subject. No dated site-progress photograph is published by anyone, and no floor plate or key plan is published in retrievable form. The developer’s own disclaimer states that its information may change, does not form an offer or contract, that all renderings are artist’s impressions, and that it may modify the building, the development or the units before completion.
Ask me for dated site photographsSeksyen U5, Subang Bestari, Shah Alam — marketed as “Damansara West”, filed as U5
No government register publishes a coordinate for this project and no filing prints a street address, so the pin below is the filed section, not a filed coordinate, and it is labelled as such. The filed site-plan reference MBSA/PRG/KMPB/SEK: U5/0193-3-2023 encodes the section, and Seksyen U5 is Bandar Pinggiran Subang / Subang Bestari, under MBSA. Kwasa Damansara is Seksyen U4. You may fairly describe this project as near Kwasa Damansara on the developer’s own 3.3 km figure — and the developer’s own PR channel does exactly that, writing that the DASH highway “runs along the front of Kwasa Damansara and behind e-Sentral” and placing the project “near Kwasa Damansara”. It is not in it.
No street name is published on this page, and the reason is that the two reported streets differ. The listed company’s own 2017 acquisition announcement gives Jalan Zuhal U5/179; one portal prints Jalan Marikh CB U5/CB. Both are Seksyen U5 roads on Subang Bestari’s “Universe” naming theme — Zuhal is Saturn, Marikh is Mars — so neither is absurd, and a 10-acre parcel can front two. But no filing prints a street address at all, so neither is confirmed. The lot or PT number of the development parcel is not printed anywhere: not in the filing, not in either acquisition report.
The developer’s own published distances, all eight of them
- MRT Kwasa Sentral — 3.3 KM
- Subang Airport — 2.6 KM (the brochure uses the short name; Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport / Subang Skypark is also named with a shuttle and feeder bus service and no distance)
- HELP University — 2.7 KM
- Menara KWSP — 3.9 KM
- Thomson Hospital Kota Damansara — 5.5 KM
- Sunway Nexis, Sunway Giza Mall — 6.7 KM
- The Curve, IKEA Damansara — 9.5 KM
- 1 Utama Shopping Centre — 10.7 KM
- Source: the developer’s own brochure PDF. Its location page is a graphic with jumbled label ordering, so this is the printed sequence, confirmed by two independent reads of the same PDF returning the same eight pairs in the same order.
Distances published by others, with the basis each one states
- MRT Kwasa Sentral (KG05) — 1,938 m, propertysifu.my, explicitly straight-line
- MRT Kwasa Sentral — 3.0 km, an agent site, basis not stated; “about 3 km”, PropertyGuru’s “e.Sentral SmartCity” record, basis not stated
- Star Avenue Lifestyle Mall — 242 m, propertysifu.my, straight-line; 150–200 m for Star Avenue and NSK Grocery, PropertyGuru’s “e.Sentral SmartCity” record, basis not stated
- Sekolah Kebangsaan Subang Perdana — 1,074 m, propertysifu.my, straight-line
- HELP University — 2.8 km, an agent site — against the developer’s own 2.7 km
- Drive times are not published on this page. One advertorial puts 1 Utama at “about 5 minutes’ drive” against the developer’s own 10.7 km, and Thomson Hospital at five minutes against the developer’s own 5.5 km. Those are not drive times anyone achieves, so the kilometres are used instead
Named by a source with NO distance published by anyone
- DASH, NKVE, SPRINT and GCE — all four named by the developer and by three portals, with “direct access” claimed and no distance and no interchange named by anyone
- Kota Damansara MRT and Sungai Buloh KTM — listed as nearby with no distance; Sungai Buloh KTM is commuter rail, not MRT
- Kwasa Damansara, Kota Surian, Mutiara Damansara, Bandar Utama
- Tropicana Gardens Mall, Strand Mall, Lotus’s Mutiara Damansara
- Sunway Medical Centre, Hospital Sungai Buloh, KPJ Damansara Specialist Hospital, Ara Damansara Medical Centre
- SEGi University, Sri KDU
- Cyberjaya and Putrajaya, “via the GCE”
- The shuttle bus service itself — no route, no frequency and no operator is published
- The 62-acre forest the project is said to sit next to — no source names it, gives it a gazette status, or publishes any preservation commitment. It is not owned by the project. Do not read it as permanent
Filed location particulars
- Pihak berkuasa yang meluluskan pelan bangunan: Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA) — both statutory blocks
- No. rujukan kelulusan pelan bangunan: MBSA. BGN. 600-3/5/39 — both blocks
- No. rujukan pelan tapak: MBSA/PRG/KMPB/SEK: U5/0193-3-2023 — both blocks. This is the string that settles the section
- Pegangan tanah: Pajakan (leasehold) — both blocks. Tarikh tamat pajakan: NOT PRINTED
- Keluasan tanah: NOT PRINTED in either block — which is why no density figure on this page is presented as filed
- Lot / PT number: NOT PRINTED anywhere
- Land area from the Bursa announcement: 40,470 sq m (The Edge) / about 435,615.45 sq ft (EdgeProp), which is 10.0 acres on my arithmetic and reconciles with the developer’s “10 acres”
- GPS coordinates: NOT PUBLISHED by any government register. The Selangor affordable-housing register is the right register for the 155 Mampu Milik units, but its search cannot be driven from a web address, so no record could be confirmed or denied and no coordinate obtained. That is a tooling limit, not evidence either way
“Damansara West” is a developer-coined locality with no gazetted boundary; the trade article written about the locality never defines it and names no sub-areas. “SmartCity” is likewise not a filed scheme name and not a planning designation — the filed jenis bangunan is Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan. Several sources propagate the township error this page corrects: the agency folder this project was filed under, two expired listing titles (“Kwasa Damansara” and “Kota Damansara”) and one agent site that calls it “eSentral Kwasa Damansara” while its own page description calls it “Grand Damansara”.
Statutory register — SENTRAL ELIT, filed twice, and the two filings do not agree
Malaysian law requires a licensed housing developer to file and display statutory advertisement particulars, and that filing is public. For this project there are two such blocks, and they disagree with each other. Column A is the KPKT HIMS filed advertisement particulars as filed with KPKT. Column B is the identical statutory block printed inside the developer’s own brochure PDF — which is the later document, because it carries the APDL that the KPKT copy leaves as a literal placeholder. Column C is what neither block contains, which on this project is the more important column: it is where the 199 non-filed units live. Filed statutory Unit Selling Price, minimum to maximum: RM270,000 – RM597,000, exactly as filed in the statutory advertisement particulars and reprinted identically in the developer’s own brochure block. It covers the 774 serviced apartments only. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
| (A) KPKT HIMS — the as-filed statutory particulars | (B) The developer’s own statutory block, inside its brochure | (C) What NEITHER block contains |
|---|---|---|
| Scheme name field NOT PRINTED — the statutory block has no project-name field at all. The filed PDF’s narrative opens “Sentral Elit merupakan projek yang dibangunkan oleh…” Pemaju Hck Bestari Sdn Bhd — no registration number and no address inside the block No. Lesen Pemajuan Perumahan 30636/12-2028/0311(N) Tempoh sah (licence) 07/12/2023 – 12/06/2028 No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan (APDL) XXXXX-X/XX-XXXX/XXXX — a literal placeholder. The permit number is not filled in on this copy (one repetition of the block renders it as XXXXXX)Tempoh sah (permit) XX/XX/XXXX – XX/XX/XXXX — literal placeholderPihak berkuasa yang meluluskan pelan bangunan Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA) No. rujukan kelulusan pelan bangunan MBSA. BGN. 600-3/5/39 No. rujukan pelan tapak MBSA/PRG/KMPB/SEK: U5/0193-3-2023 Jenis rumah / bangunan Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Pegangan tanah Pajakan (leasehold) Tarikh tamat pajakan NOT PRINTED Sekatan kepentingan NOT PRINTED Bebanan tanah Gadaian — OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad Jumlah unit 774 Bilangan tingkat 29 Tempat letak kereta “Unit Parkir: 2” — the filing does not say whether 2 is per unit or in total Tarikh dijangka siap September 2027 Harga jualan unit min–max RM270,000 – RM597,000, scheduled per type Keluasan binaan per type, in m²: 51.47 (A, A1, A2, A3) · 62.99 (B) · 75.72 (C) Keluasan tanah NOT PRINTED Lot / PT no. NOT PRINTED Diskaun Bumiputera filed as “Tiada” — compare column B. Value not published on this page Advertisement approval statement “IKLAN INI TELAH DILULUSKAN OLEH JABATAN PERUMAHAN NEGARA” Sales gallery address NOT PRINTED on this copy Named developer officer NOT PRINTED Statutory schedule, as filed: Types A & A1 Mampu Milik — 155 units, 51.47 m², RM270,000–RM270,000 · Types A2 & A3 — 35 units, 51.47 m², RM432,000–RM432,000 · Type B — 440 units, 62.99 m², RM513,000–RM516,000 · Type C — 144 units, 75.72 m², RM594,000–RM597,000. Sum: 774 (my arithmetic, reconciling with the filed Jumlah unit) | Identical to column A on: Pemaju, licence number, licence validity, approving authority, building-plan reference, site-plan reference, jenis (Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan), pegangan (Pajakan), bebanan (OCBC), Jumlah unit (774), Bilangan tingkat (29), “Unit Parkir: 2” and the statutory price band (RM270,000 – RM597,000). It differs on four things, and it fills in the two that column A leaves blank: Nombor Permit Iklan dan Jualan 30636-1/10-2027/0924(N)-(S) — the developer publishes the real permit number that the KPKT copy leaves as a placeholder, and propertysifu.my independently transcribes the same serial, so it is not a brochure typo Tempoh sah (permit) 10/10/2024 – 10/09/2027 Tarikh Siap Pembinaan October 2028 — thirteen months after column A’s September 2027. This is the field that fixes the Schedule H delivery obligation Diskaun Bumiputera present and populated, against column A’s “Tiada”. The field exists and the two filings disagree. The value is deliberately withheld from this page — see the disclosure below Keluasan binaan 51.45 · 63 · 75.69 — disagreeing with column A at the second decimal. Immaterial in square feet (all six figures round to 554 / 678 / 815, my conversion) but it proves the two blocks are not copies of one another Types A & A1 label “Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Mampu Milik” — more explicit than column A’s Mampu Milik Registration number 201701010085 (1224250-P) — printed in the separate Developer section, outside the statutory block Sales office D-29-G, Pusat Komersial Arena Bintang, Shah Alam — outside the block Developer address Level 40, HCK Tower (J-40-1), Petaling Jaya Telephone 016 822 8900 — printed under “In Collaboration with”, not labelled as the developer’s number, though the microsite uses the same number for WhatsApp Residential floor levels Level 10 · Level 11 · Levels 12–28, on the unit plans. Levels 1–9 unassigned by anyone Ownership statement “a wholly owned subsidiary of HCK Capital Group Bhd” — contradicted by the Bursa-derived shareholding. See the developer section | The 186 LoSo units — absent from the filed schedule entirely The 13 retail units — absent from the filed schedule entirely Condor Tower, the second 774-unit tower — not filed. Serial 30636-2 does not exist on KPKT HIMS, and neither does 30636-3 Any second permit index on licence 30636 — none. The serial walk returns 404 at -2 and -3, and the other advertisement filenames under -1 are 404 as well. Only 30636-1 exists Any statutory price for a LoSo or retail unit — none exists, and none can, because the Housing Development Act does not reach purely commercial accommodation Any Schedule H for a LoSo or retail unit — none Built-up of any LoSo type (D, E, F, G) — not published. One portal’s aggregate is 450–597 sq ft Built-up of any retail type (G1–G13) — not published. One portal’s aggregate is “up to 1,905 sq ft” Unit count per LoSo type, and the levels the 186 LoSo and 13 retail units occupy — not published The title type of the LoSo and retail units — commercial strata is the obvious assumption; no source states it The sale contract, defect-liability period, late-delivery remedy and any protected account for the LoSo and retail units — no source answers any of these What “LoSo” stands for — the developer never expands the acronym What a “Boutique Office” is, how many there are, and whether it is the same product as a LoSo unit — it is offered on the developer’s own SAMM page and appears in no filing and nowhere else Built percentage of construction — no construction progress percentage is published by anyone. The nearest figure is a sales figure: a KPKT-derived row recording 416 of 774 units sold at 28 August 2026, which is not the same thing Service charge and sinking fund as published by the developer — neither statutory block prints a service charge, and neither does the microsite or the brochure. A portal publishes RM0.40 per sq ft excluding a 10% sinking fund, and a 36-month plus 12-month construction period; all four are that portal’s figures, not the developer’s GDV — never published, not in the 2017 announcement, not in the 2024 launch coverage, not on the group site and not in the brochure Main contractor, contract sum and construction programme — none published for this project The consultant team — architect, C&S, M&E and QS: none named anywhere |
Both blocks were read in full and transcribed separately before being compared. Where they agree, the value is given once. Where they disagree, both values are shown and neither is suppressed. Two internal date inconsistencies sit in the source itself, not in the reading of it: the licence serial encodes 12-2028 against a printed validity ending 12/06/2028, and the permit serial encodes 10-2027 against a printed validity ending 10/09/2027. Malaysian serials encode the expiry as MM-YYYY, so each serial implies a date a few months later than its own printed expiry. Both statutory blocks print the same dates, so this is a feature of the filing. Neither reading changes the answer today: on either, the licence and the permit are current.
Developer’s licence 30636/12-2028/0311(N), valid 07/12/2023 – 12/06/2028. APDL 30636-1/10-2027/0924(N)-(S), valid 10/10/2024 – 10/09/2027, sourced to the developer’s own brochure and independently transcribed by propertysifu.my. The KPKT-held copy still carries a blank placeholder in that field, so a lapse check cannot be run from the KPKT copy alone. Never pass a licence validity off as a permit validity. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
What the filed statutory price range is, and what it is not
The filed statutory Unit Selling Price for this scheme runs from RM270,000 to RM597,000, scheduled per type: RM270,000 flat for the 155 Mampu Milik units, RM432,000 flat for the 35 open-market units of the same size, RM513,000–RM516,000 for the 440 Type B units and RM594,000–RM597,000 for the 144 Type C units. It appears identically in both statutory blocks. It covers the 774 serviced apartments only. It is the filed SPA price range and nothing else — not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and not a figure that has had anything netted off it. Two published figures are deliberately not reproduced on this page. One portal publishes a price-per-square-foot band whose floor cannot be reconciled with any filed type — it is roughly a third below the lowest figure any filed price-divided-by-area combination produces. A second portal publishes a headline “from” figure quoted to the single ringgit that matches no filed band: it sits above the filed Mampu Milik minimum but below the filed open-market minimum for the same floor area. A figure quoted to the ringgit that falls between two filed bands does not read as a filed price, so neither figure is published here. Each is carried by one source. For anything beyond the filed band, the real document is the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery — ask me and I will get you both.
Can a foreign buyer purchase here? — the Selangor threshold, and why it answers itself
Selangor sets a minimum purchase price for foreign buyers of RM2,000,000 in Zone 1 and Zone 2, and restricts foreign purchase to strata property and gated landed strata only. In Zone 3 — Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — the floor is RM1,000,000. Shah Alam is not in Zone 3, so the RM2,000,000 floor applies. The filed statutory price range for this scheme tops out at RM597,000. On the filed figures, therefore, no unit in this development is available to a foreign buyer, and the 155 Mampu Milik units are additionally restricted to Malaysian citizens under the state scheme. (For comparison, Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territories set RM1,000,000 with EPU consent — which would not change the answer here either.) Thresholds and zone boundaries are set by the state authority and change; confirm the current rule and the current zone before you act on this paragraph, and ask me to confirm it in writing with the state authority for your specific unit.
The affordable component — SAMM, and the conditions the developer publishes
155 of the 774 filed units are scheduled as Mampu Milik, filed at RM270,000. The scheme is SAMM, administered by LPHS (Lembaga Perumahan dan Hartanah Selangor), and the acronym is never spelled out on the developer’s own page, which uses it alongside “Servis Apartmen Mampu Milik”. SAMM is not Rumah Selangorku — the developer’s page treats them as different schemes, and says an existing Rumah Selangorku owner is not subject to the one-unit limit. Eligibility as the developer prints it: Malaysian citizen aged 18 or over, applicant and/or spouse; household income not exceeding RM15,000 a month, with priority under RM10,000; one unit only under the scheme; priority to young entrepreneurs aged 40 or below; transfer only after 5 years from the SPA date and only with state-authority approval; an application is valid 2 years, after which a waitlisted application is struck out and must be resubmitted. The developer’s page states no unit count and no price — the 155 units and the RM270,000 come from the filing, not from that page. Whether the 5-year transfer restriction is endorsed on the strata title is not published, and it is the first thing to ask. Note also that the same page offers the scheme over “Pangsapuri Kediaman Komersial” or “Boutique Office”, and a “Boutique Office” appears in no filing anywhere.
What this page does not publish, and why
Louis’s standing rule on every project page is that only the filed SPA price is published, so that nothing on the page nets off or pre-empts anything a buyer should be discussing with him directly. Accordingly this page publishes no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no package, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera discount percentage, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental-return rate, and no yield or ROI projection — none was sought and none is recorded. Three specific withholdings on this project, stated so you know they exist rather than wondering whether they were missed: (1) the Diskaun Bumiputera field is filed as “Tiada” on the KPKT copy and is present and populated in the developer’s own brochure block — the field exists, the two filings disagree, and the value is not written anywhere on this page; (2) one portal’s price-per-square-foot floor, which cannot be reconciled with any filed type; and (3) one portal’s headline “from” figure, which falls between two filed bands. Ask me and I will put every one of them to HCK Bestari in writing and send you the answer with the document it came from.
HCK BESTARI SDN BHD — and the PKNS joint venture the brochure does not mention
The licensed developer of SENTRAL ELIT, marketed as e.Sentral SmartCity, is HCK BESTARI SDN BHD, company registration number 201701010085 (1224250-P). The name is printed as Pemaju in both statutory blocks. The registration number is not inside either statutory block — neither carries a company-registration field — and comes instead from the microsite’s own copyright line and from the brochure’s separate Developer section. Your SPA counterparty is HCK Bestari Sdn Bhd, not HCK Capital Group Bhd, which is the listed parent and is not the licensee. Check that the company number on your agreement reads 201701010085. Registered address as the brochure prints it: Level 40, HCK Tower (J-40-1), Petaling Jaya; the microsite gives the fuller Level 40, HCK Tower, No. 8 Jalan Damansara, Empire City, PJU 8, 47820 Petaling Jaya. The sales office is D-29-G, Pusat Komersial Arena Bintang, Shah Alam. No developer officer is named in either filing.
On who owns the licensee, the developer’s own brochure and the listed company’s own Bursa disclosure cannot both be right. The brochure calls HCK Bestari “a wholly owned subsidiary of HCK Capital Group Bhd”. The Edge, reporting the Bursa announcement, gives the shareholding as PKNS 30% and Binary Binajaya Sdn Bhd 70%, with HCK Capital holding 70% of Binary Binajaya for an effective 49%, and states in terms that HCK Bestari “is a joint venture, not a PKNS subsidiary”. EdgeProp describes HCK Bestari as an indirect unit of HCK Capital and the land purchase as a related-party transaction, because HCK Bestari is partly owned by a PKNS subsidiary. “Wholly owned” cannot be squared with a 30% state stake and a 49% effective holding, so this page takes the Bursa-derived figures. Who holds the remaining 30% of Binary Binajaya — the other ~21% effective interest in your SPA counterparty — is not published by anyone.
For a buyer, the Bursa version is the better news, which is what makes the brochure’s wording odd. Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor, the Selangor state development corporation, holds 30% of the entity that will sign your SPA. PKNS was also the vendor of the land: HCK Capital announced on 7 December 2017 the purchase of 40,470 sq m — about 435,615.45 sq ft, which is 10.0 acres on my arithmetic — of vacant leasehold land in Mukim Sungai Buloh from PKNS for RM80 million cash, funded in part by about RM10.5 million from a rights issue of warrants completed 2 October 2017, with internal funds and bank borrowings. At the time the intended use was described only as a “mixed development comprising residential and commercial properties”, the plan was “still preliminary” and the GDV “yet to be determined”. The GDV has never been published since — not at the August 2024 groundbreaking, not on the group’s own project page, and not in the brochure. At that groundbreaking, PKNS Deputy CEO (Development) Ir. Haji Md. Kamarzan bin Md. Rais co-officiated with HCK Managing Director Datuk Dr Dennis Ling, which is consistent with the Bursa shareholding and not with “wholly owned”.
Two further things on the corporate side, both of them blanks. First, the microsite’s own copyright footer prints a second company directly beneath HCK Bestari’s entry: NATURAL DOMAIN SDN BHD 200301013478 (615898-V), of No. 52, Jalan Tago 2, off Jalan Persiaran Utama, Sri Damansara, Kuala Lumpur. Its role is stated nowhere — it is not the licensee, it is not named in any filing, it is not named in any news report, and the page that prints it does not explain it. A targeted search returned nothing on it. It is on this page because it is on the developer’s own page, and because you would reasonably want to know who it is. Second, no main contractor is published for this project: no Bursa announcement, no construction-industry record and no news report names one. Do not borrow the contractor from the group’s other scheme: the RM316.5 million letter of award to Binastra Builders Sdn Bhd reported in 2026 is for Subang Sentral, a different mixed development in Subang Jaya with a long-delayed buyer base, and the article that reports it never mentions e.Sentral SmartCity. It is a trap worth naming, because that article describes Subang Sentral in e.Sentral’s exact vocabulary — “smart low-carbon city”, “health hub”, “pet-friendly tower” — and the two names are one syllable apart.
On green certification, the register and the press do not agree, and the register wins. GreenRE’s own public register carries exactly one row for this development: e.Sentral SmartCity · HCK Bestari Sdn Bhd · SILVER · 05/05/2025 · (Provisional). There is no row for it under Gold and none under Platinum. Provisional means a design-stage award, not a certified completed building, and the rating is Silver. A trade article of June 2025 reports that the project “ha[s] earned GreenRE certification” with no rating and no mention of the status word, under a web address containing the words “gold standard”; it is an advertorial channel carrying the same byline as three other pieces on this developer, and it is not treated here as corroboration of final certification. The developer’s own material claims only “meeting GreenRE and ESG standards” and never states a rating, a certificate number or a status; the group’s sustainability and ESG pages do not mention GreenRE at all. No Green Building Index record was located for this project and no source claims one — which is an absence, not a contradiction.
On awards, exactly one belongs to this project: StarProperty Awards 2025, Honours, The Earth Conscious Award (High-Rise). Say that and stop. Everything else in the developer’s published accolades list belongs either to the group as a corporate entity — brand, property-technology, developer and shareholder-return awards across 2018 to 2024 — or to other buildings: the 2026 urban-renewal award and a 2021 business-estate award to edumetro, and the 2021 proximity award, the 2019 “Best Smart Living Development” and the 2018 “Best Mixed Development” to edusphere @ Cyberjaya. The last two are the ones most likely to be borrowed, because “smart living” and “mixed development” both read as though they described this project. They are not this project’s awards and they are not claimed on this page. Three advertorials call HCK “an award-winning property developer” and invoke an “award-winning Education City series” without naming a single award. “Award-winning developer” is true at group level. “Award-winning project” is true of one award.
Developer particulars are taken from the two statutory blocks, the microsite’s own copyright line and the brochure’s Developer section. Shareholding, land area, purchase price and the related-party characterisation are taken from the Bursa announcement as reported by The Edge, EdgeProp and The Star. The green rating, its date and its status word are taken from GreenRE’s own public register. The awards table is the developer’s own published list, read item by item to establish which award attaches to which development. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
e.Sentral SmartCity — frequently asked questions, answered from the filings
Is e.Sentral SmartCity in Kwasa Damansara?
What is the filed scheme name, and why does it matter?
Who exactly will I be signing the SPA with, and who owns them?
Are the LoSo units and the retail units covered by the Housing Development Act?
What does “LoSo” stand for?
What is the filed selling price range?
When will it be completed?
Is the APDL valid today?
XXXXX-X/XX-XXXX/XXXX and its validity as XX/XX/XXXX — placeholders. The real serial is printed by the developer’s own brochure and is independently transcribed by propertysifu.my, so it is not a typo — but the lapse check cannot be run from the KPKT copy alone, and a licence validity must never be passed off as a permit validity. If you are buying after 10 September 2027, ask to see the renewed permit.Is it GreenRE certified?
Can a foreigner buy a unit here?
How many units are there, exactly?
Is this a low-density development?
What is the built-up area of each type, and why do sources disagree?
What award has this project actually won?
What is on this page that is not published anywhere, so I know what to ask for?
Want the two filings rather than the brochure?
I will send you the KPKT-filed advertisement particulars for SENTRAL ELIT, the developer’s own statutory block from its brochure, the GreenRE register entry with its rating and its status word, and the Bursa-derived shareholding — as published, side by side, including where the developer’s own two documents disagree. And I will put every blank on this page to HCK Bestari in writing on your behalf, starting with the sale contract for the 199 units the Housing Development Act does not reach.
Louis Koh · Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
I work KL and Selangor new launches, and I publish the filed statutory particulars rather than the brochure copy — including, as here, where a developer files one completion date with the ministry and prints another in its own brochure, where a licensee’s brochure calls itself a wholly owned subsidiary and the Bursa disclosure says it is a joint venture with a 30% state shareholder, and where a third of a phase is sold outside the Housing Development Act altogether. If a figure on this page matters to your decision, ask me for the document it came from and I will send it. If a blank on this page matters, I will go and ask HCK Bestari in writing.
Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 · Built from the KPKT-filed advertisement particulars for licence 30636, serial 30636-1; the identical statutory block printed inside the developer’s own brochure; GreenRE’s own public register; the Bursa Malaysia land-acquisition announcement as reported by The Edge, EdgeProp and The Star; the developer’s own microsite and group project page; and four named portals. Where the developer’s own two statutory blocks disagree, both values are shown and neither is suppressed. The only prices on this page are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum for each type, and nothing else; three specific withholdings, and the reason for each, are set out under “What this page does not publish, and why” in the register section. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Ask a specific question
If you would rather not use WhatsApp, use this. I answer them myself. Only your name and one contact method are required.
Developer: HCK Capital Group (3 developments on this site)
Where it is: Shah Alam, Selangor
The unit mix, the permitted price and how far up it is
None of this table is the developer’s account of itself. It is what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government records from the 7(f) returns: unit type, bedrooms and bathrooms, built-up area, unit count, the price range on the permit, and the certified percentage complete. A brochure price can be revised; the price on the permit was filed. A brochure need not mention progress; the percentage is certified. The status vocabulary is theirs too: Lancar (on schedule), Lewat (behind), Sakit (sick), Terbengkalai (abandoned).
30636-1 · SENTRAL ELIT
Overall status: Lancar — on schedule
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pangsapuri Servis 29 storeys Lancar | 1, 2, 3 / 1, 2, 3 | — | 774 | RM270,000.00 – RM597,000.00 | 30.27% |
Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.
This is the document the developer had to file, and the housing department had to approve, before it was allowed to advertise at all — served from the ministry’s own host. It normally carries the location plan, the developer licence and building-plan approval references, the expected completion date, the encumbrance position, and the unit count and price floor and ceiling for each type. The brochure a salesperson hands you can be reissued. This one cannot.
Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 30636-1. Re-read weekly.
What to do with the number. Read it against the delivery date in your own agreement, not against what a salesperson says. A project with a year left on its statutory clock and a third of the building up is telling you something the brochure will not.
How does that compare? Every development on this site, grouped by register status — cancelled, abandoned and behind schedule first.