M Aspira @ Taman Desa

Why M Aspira is worth a look — and the six things to settle first

A long lease, a listed developer with a real award this year, a substantial facilities programme, and construction visibly under way. The open questions are almost entirely documentary, and they are unusually numerous.

The three layouts

Only three types across the whole scheme. Built-up areas come from the statutory filings, which agree except on Type C by one square foot. Bedroom and bathroom counts come from marketing material — the filings carry no bedroom or bathroom data at all. No source publishes how many units of each type exist.

Type A — 706 sq ft, 2 bedrooms

706 sq ft (about 65.6 sq m) · 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms

Statutory built-up — both filings agreeUnit count per type: not published1 bay per unit (agent site only)

The entry layout, and the only type where two bathrooms comfortably match the bedroom count. The statutory built-up of 706 sq ft is agreed by both filings, which is worth noting because it is one of the fields they do agree on. The car park allocation — one bay — comes from an agent site rather than the developer or the filing, and the filings themselves only give a range for the whole scheme (1–2 bays in the KPKT copy, 1–3 on the licence page). Get your allocation in writing.

Type B — 855 sq ft, 3 bedrooms

855 sq ft (about 79.4 sq m) · 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms

Statutory built-up — both filings agreeUnit count per type: not published1 tandem bay (agent site only)

The middle layout. Three bedrooms in 855 sq ft is efficient rather than generous, so ask to see the plan and check the bedroom dimensions rather than working from the total area. The agent-sourced allocation for this type is a single tandem bay — one behind the other rather than side by side, which matters if two drivers in the household leave at different times. That figure is not the developer’s, so confirm it.

Type C — about 1,006 sq ft, 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms

1,006 sq ft per Mah Sing’s licence page · 1,005 sq ft per the KPKT filing (about 93.5 sq m) · 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms

The filings differ by 1 sq ft4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms2 side-by-side bays (agent site only)

The largest layout, and the one where the two statutory filings differ — 1,006 sq ft on Mah Sing’s licence page against 1,005 in the KPKT copy. A one-square-foot gap is immaterial in itself; it is listed here only because it is one of the six fields on which the two documents disagree. The substantive point about this type is different: four bedrooms sharing two bathrooms. Every source agrees on that, so it is the design rather than a misprint, and it is the thing to weigh against the bedroom count. The agent-sourced allocation is two bays side by side.

Built-up areas in square feet are from the statutory advertisement particulars — both filings agree on Types A and B and differ by one square foot on Type C. Square-metre figures are our own conversions; neither filing publishes metric areas. Bedroom and bathroom counts are from developer marketing material only, and are consistent across every source found. Car park allocation per type is from an agent site, not from the developer or either filing — the filings give only a per-unit range, and even that differs between them (1–2 against 1–3). No source publishes the number of units of each type, nor any unit mix by tower beyond the tower totals.

M Aspira in pictures

All images are the developer’s own, published on maspira.com.my and verified through its media library, where each carries a title identifying its subject — so unlike many projects on this site, these captions are the developer’s own descriptions rather than inferences from filenames. The exception is the site progress photograph used elsewhere on this page, which is a genuine construction photograph dated August 2026 rather than a render; everything else here is an artist impression and is not a representation of the finished building.

Location and distances

Each distance below is attributed to the specific developer page or publication that published it. Where only a vague figure exists, that is said rather than sharpened into a number. No source publishes a distance to any park, so none is given.

Statutory particulars — and the six fields where the two filings disagree

Both versions of the advertisement particulars are the developer’s own: the copy filed on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s HIMS portal, and the block on Mah Sing’s developer licence page. The agreed fields are set out in the table; the six disagreements follow.

The licence and APDL numbers above appear on Mah Sing’s own developer licence page. In the KPKT-filed copy both of those fields are printed blank, which is the tell that the filed copy is the version submitted with the APDL application. Building type Pangsapuri Servis in both. Restriction in interest in both: the land cannot be transferred, leased or mortgaged without consent of the Land Committee of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory. Statutory Unit Selling Price identical in both: Tower A RM624,960–RM920,160, Tower B RM632,160–RM983,760.

Sources: the advertisement particulars filed under licence serial 5911, phase 33, on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s HIMS portal, and the statutory block on mahsing.com.my’s advertising permits and developer licence page, both read on 30 September 2026. A search for phase 34 under the same serial returns nothing, which indicates a single registered phase.

Why the two documents differ, most likely

The KPKT-hosted copy has the developer’s licence number and the APDL number printed blank. That is the signature of the version submitted with the APDL application — the numbers did not exist yet when it was drafted. So Mah Sing’s own licence page is almost certainly the current version, and the KPKT copy has simply never been refreshed. That reading is benign, and it explains five of the six differences as staleness rather than error. The consequence for a buyer is still real: the document you can find on the government’s own portal is out of date, so do not use it to check a sales claim, and do raise the discrepancy with the developer rather than assuming which figure applies to you.

Disagreement one — the completion date, 22 months apart

KPKT filing: Ogos 2027 (August 2027). Mah Sing’s licence page: Jun 2029 (June 2029). This is the difference that matters most, because it is the date your money and your plans hang on. On the staleness reading above, June 2029 is the current figure. But nothing published creates an obligation either way: the only date that binds, and the only one the liquidated damages clause attaches to, is the delivery period written into your signed sale and purchase agreement. Read that clause, and ask the developer in writing which date it stands behind.

Disagreement two — the total units and the tower split

KPKT filing: 1,613 units — Blok A 647, Blok B 966. Licence page: 1,618 units — Menara A 686, Menara B 932. Both the total and the split differ, and the split differs by 39 units in Tower A and 34 in Tower B. That is not rounding. It most likely reflects a design revision between the two filings, but it does mean you should confirm the unit count in your own tower — it affects the common-area share your maintenance charge is calculated on.

Disagreement three — whether the land is charged

KPKT filing: encumbrance “Tiada” — none. Licence page: Maybank Islamic Berhad. A charge over development land is completely ordinary; it is how projects are financed, and it does not harm a buyer who completes properly because the developer must obtain a partial discharge per unit before transfer. What is not ordinary is two of the developer’s own documents giving opposite answers. Ask for the current position in writing and have your conveyancing lawyer confirm it with a fresh land search rather than relying on either document.

Disagreements four to six — the smaller ones

Building plan reference: DBKL.JKB.BPS1OSC20241952 in the KPKT copy against DBKL.JKB.BP S1 OSC 2024 2824 on the licence page — a different plan number, not a formatting variation. Type C built-up: 1,005 sq ft against 1,006 sq ft, which is immaterial in itself. Car park bays per unit: 1 to 2 in the KPKT copy against 1 to 3 on the licence page. None of these three is serious on its own; together with the three above they are why this page treats the filed copy as stale rather than authoritative.

The statutory price band, and what it is not

Tower A RM624,960 to RM920,160; Tower B RM632,160 to RM983,760, giving a scheme band of RM624,960 to RM983,760. This is identical in both filings, which is reassuring. On our own arithmetic against the statutory built-ups it works out to roughly RM885 to RM978 per sq ft — that psf figure is ours, not a published one. The band is a statutory disclosure of the range across the scheme: it is not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer, and it does not tell you what any individual unit is available at. No government transaction price band exists for this scheme, because it is under construction with no completed transactions, so none is quoted.

What is absent from both filings

Neither document states the number of storeys, the car park level count or the total car park bays. That is why this page gives no storey figure: the numbers circulating on agent sites disagree with each other (66 and 69 against 66 and 68), and one site’s per-floor arithmetic does not reconcile with its own unit total. Nothing authoritative exists, so nothing is asserted.

Not published, and therefore not on this page

The number of units of each layout type; the unit mix by tower beyond the tower totals; the total car park bays and the car park level count; the storey count; the car park allocation per layout from any developer source; the maintenance charge per square foot; the sinking fund; a confirmed vacant possession date; and any distance to a park. This page also carries no discount, rebate, nett price, promotional package, incentive or commission figure, whether or not such things exist — and note in particular that every marketing “from” headline we found, on Mah Sing’s own two sites and on three portals, sits below the filed statutory minimum, which means those figures can only be net of something. They are deliberately withheld here.

M Aspira: the questions buyers actually ask

Other KL projects documented the same way

Published 30 September 2026 · Statutory particulars read on 30 September 2026 from the filing under licence serial 5911 phase 33 on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s HIMS portal and from the statutory block on mahsing.com.my. The two disagree on the completion date, the unit count and tower split, the encumbrance, the building plan reference, Type C’s built-up and the car park range per unit; the filed copy has its licence and APDL fields blank. The GreenRE registry was checked against greenre.org and returned no entry for Aspira. Images are the developer’s own, with subjects taken from its media library titles.