Myra Cove @ Cyberjaya — Daerah Sepang, Selangor

Thirteen things about this project that do not add up — and the source for each

Each card states what the government record says, what the marketing says, and who published which. Nothing here is inference unless the card says so. The first card is the only one in this series so far that is good news about a developer’s honesty, so it goes first.

The 17 marketed layouts — and the four that belong to the other phase

These are the developer’s own Phase 2 types, grouped into the three marketing families it uses. Read the two warnings first. (1) Four of these types — T2G, T5, T6 and L1 — are absent from the Phase 2 filing and present in the Phase 1 filing. Treat them as unconfirmed for Phase 2. (2) The family headline ranges are built-up plus terrace; the per-type figures are built-up only, and the developer never says so — which is why “up to 2,060 sq ft” appears nowhere below as a built-up.

Attribution, in full. Every built-up figure above is the developer’s own marketed figure from its Phase 2 layout page. Neither filed HIMS brochure prints a single square foot. Both filings list bare type codes with no area, no room count and no bay count — 13 codes for Phase 1 (T1, T1G, T2, T2G, T3, T4, T5, T6, L1, L2, L2A, L3, L3G) and 13 for Phase 2 (T2, T3, T4, T5A, T6A, L1A, L2, L2A, L3, L3G, T2GA, L3GA, L3GB) — and both register records file keluasan as 0 mps. The register’s own bedroom fields are 2, 3, 4 for Phase 1 and 3, 4 for Phase 2, so Phase 2 has no two-bedroom unit. How many types are there? Six different answers exist: 13 codes in the Phase 1 filing, 13 in the Phase 2 filing, 17 on the developer’s layout page, “19 configurations” (StarProperty), “19 floor plans” (EdgeProp) and “14 floor plans” (BusinessToday) — three of those from the developer’s own side. Nothing maps a type to a block, a floor or a view orientation: the developer publishes block unit counts and type areas as two unconnected tables. A register keying error to ignore: TEDUH 20164-1 reports bilikAir: “2, 3, 22”. A 22-bathroom apartment does not exist; every other source says 2, or at most 3. It is recorded here only because a reader who checks the register will see it. And two things no source claims, checked deliberately: there is no dual-key layout — no source claims one and the developer’s own room counts (3–4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms on every one of the 17 types) cannot support one — and there is no studio: PropertyGuru’s “with-studio” filter pages are a portal artifact, the filed bedroom counts start at 2, and the smallest built-up anywhere in the development is about 872–877 sq ft on press figures for Phase 1. Refuse any listing that calls a Myra Cove unit dual key or studio.

Five images, every one of them a Phase 2 artist’s impression

What must be said about these five images, and it is not a formality. All five are Phase 2 artist’s impressions. The developer’s own disclaimer reads “all rendering contents are artist impressions” and “subject to change without notification”. There is not one photograph of the completed Phase 1 building anywhere — on the developer’s site or on any other source — even though Phase 1 has held its CCC since December 2025 and was handed over in January 2026. The site-progress microsite at projects.myra.com.my/siteprogress/myracove publishes no percentage, no date and no CCC status — just two phase tiles. On grading: myra.com.my is not a WordPress site and exposes no CMS record at all, so no subject on this page can be graded higher than caption-published, and the facilities plan is graded inferred from its filename only. On picking: the brand gives every project logo across all its projects the alt text “Myra Cove logo”, so nothing here was chosen by alt text — each file was picked by exact filename inside the per-project /myra-homes/myracove/ directory, against a clean 404 negative control. Deliberately excluded: the /hero/ folder, which holds licensed lifestyle stock that is not this project and must never be published as Myra Cove; several render files whose captions name no facility; and the campaign popups, which carry promotional content this page does not publish.

Cyberjaya, Daerah Sepang, Selangor — and why this page carries no map pin

This is the one section where this page refuses to do what every other project page does. The two filed GPS coordinates for the two phases of this single development are about 900 m apart, no filing publishes a street address, and nothing in any source resolves which coordinate is wrong. So the map below is a locality map of Cyberjaya and nothing more. There is no project pin on this page, and that is deliberate.

Statutory register — MYRA COVE, both filed phases side by side

Malaysian law requires a licensed housing developer to file and display statutory advertisement particulars, and that filing is public. Myra Cove has two of them, one per registered phase under a single developer’s licence, and they are the spine of this page rather than a footnote. Each column sets out the particulars as the filed HIMS brochure for that phase prints them, with the KPKT register’s own field alongside wherever the two disagree — and on this project they disagree in five places that matter: the permit number (blank on both brochures), the licence number (expired on both brochures), the Phase 2 permit suffix, the Phase 2 chargee, and the delivery date itself. A third phase does not exist: 20164-4 is a 404 and the register credits this licensee with exactly three projects, the third being Myra Senja in Daerah Petaling.

Read the two columns together. The licensee, the approving authority, the tenure, the restriction in interest, the filed building type and the sale contract are identical across both phases, so the differences are what matter. Five of them are material. First, the permit. No Permit is BLANK on both brochures, so the register is the only place either APDL exists — and that is how Phase 1’s lapse on 27 September 2026 became visible. Second, the licence. Both brochures print 20164/09-2026/1211 with different suffixes and an expiry of 27/09/2026; the live licence is a different serial, 20164/09-2031/0454(R), to 2031. Third, the Phase 2 permit suffix: the developer publishes (N) on three of its own surfaces and the register’s project field prints (A). Fourth, the Phase 2 chargee: the filed brochure says Tiada, the developer’s own website says RHB Bank Berhad. Fifth, and most consequential, the delivery date: both phases carry an approved 12-month extension — and unusually in this series, both brochures print a date consistent with it rather than the original. Phase 1 then delivered about three months inside the revised date and about nine months past the original. Phase 2’s real revised date is 28 November 2028, and nobody publishes it. Two further absences run across both columns and are not cosmetic: no land area at all, which is why every density figure on this page is labelled as computed on a press denominator, and no built-up area in either filing, which is why every square-foot figure on this page is the developer’s marketed one.

Price labelling, so there is no ambiguity about what is published above. Every RM figure in the two columns is a filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum or maximum (Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima) as printed in the legally filed HIMS advertisement particulars for that phase, shown against the KPKT register’s own harga band for the same phase. On this project, unusually, the two records agree exactly on both phases — there is no splice of two permit generations of the kind this site has had to flag elsewhere. These are project-wide filed bands, never a per-type price and never a per-unit price: nobody publishes which type falls where inside the band. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The price that governs what you pay is the price list and the SPA at the sales gallery, for the specific unit, on the day.

Can a foreigner buy here? On the filed prices, no — and the gap is wide

Selangor applies a minimum purchase price of RM2,000,000 per unit for a foreign buyer in Zone 1 and Zone 2, and restricts foreign purchase to strata property and gated landed strata only. Zone 3 — which consists of Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — applies RM1,000,000. Myra Cove is in Daerah Sepang, which is neither Hulu Selangor nor Sabak Bernam, so the RM2,000,000 threshold is the one that applies — that identification is mine from the published zone definitions, and it should be confirmed in writing by the state authority or your solicitor before you act on it. Now hold it against the filings. The highest filed statutory figure anywhere on this project is RM1,197,600 — Phase 2’s maximum — and Phase 1’s filed maximum is RM1,112,300. Both sit well below RM2,000,000, so on the filed statutory price ranges not a single unit in either registered phase reaches the Selangor foreign-buyer floor. The comparison and the arithmetic are mine; every price figure in it is a filed one. This matters more here than on most pages on this site, because a good part of my readership buys from outside Malaysia: on the published record, Myra Cove is not a project an overseas individual can buy into at the filed prices, and anyone told otherwise should be asked to put the eligibility route in writing before a booking form is signed. For completeness: on building form the units would qualify, since both phases are filed Schedule H strata title housing accommodation — exactly the strata form Selangor permits. It is the price, not the form, that fails the test. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

Construction progress — what percentage is built?

The register’s component rows carry a peratus field, which follows the latest Form 7(f) progress return filed in HIMS. Phase 1’s single component reads 100.00% with status Siap Dengan CCC, consistent with its filed CCC of 3 December 2025 and its filed vacant possession of 5 January 2026. Phase 2 reads per block: B1 22.80%, B2 20.00%, B3 21.63%, B4 35.00%, B5 35.00%, with all five rows marked Lancar — on track — and the development marked Berfasa, phased. Those percentages are the one hard construction datum on Phase 2, and they are the government’s, not the developer’s. The developer’s own site-progress microsite publishes no percentage, no date and no CCC status at all — only two phase tiles. Read the shape of it: the low-rise blocks B4 and B5 are furthest along and the 32-storey B1 is furthest behind, which is the normal sequence, but no source publishes a block completion sequence or says whether B2–B5 will complete before B1. One important note on reading that field: peratus here is a construction-progress percentage, not a Bumiputera quota and not any kind of price concession — it is a field that is easy to misread, and it is read correctly here.

Awards and green certification — there are none, and that is a clean finding

Awards: Myra Cove has none, and the developer claims none for it. myra.com.my carries no awards page at all; its About page offers only the unsupported sentence “we are often recognized for our affordable and quality homes”, which names no award, no awarding body and no year. The two “award-winning” phrases that do appear in the press both belong to the architect, yhsA. An architect’s award is not a project award and it is refused here at project level. Nor is anything borrowed from the brand family: nothing from Myra Senja, Myra Saujana, Myra Embun, Myra Tenuman, Myra Gardens, Myra Idaman or any other Myra scheme appears on this page. Green: all four GreenRE rating registers were read separately — Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze — and Myra Cove has no entry in the reachable portion of any of them. Because the Gold, Silver and Bronze tables truncate on their last row, the honest wording is “no entry in the reachable portion” and not “no green rating”; and the GBI directory returned a 404, so GBI status is unknown, not absent. The sibling trap, named so nobody falls into it: the GreenRE Bronze register does carry a Myra project — “Myra Idaman”, PROVISIONAL, 11 February 2026, certified to Myra Gardens Sdn Bhd under licence 20014. That is a different licensee, a different district and a different scheme. It is not this project and it does not transfer. Two further Cyberjaya rows in the same register — The Vybe @Techzone (MKN Embassy Development) and Sanderling Lakefront Cyberjaya (Lakefront Residence) — are also not this project. The stronger point is that the developer makes no green claim of its own: there is no GreenRE logo, no GBI logo, no “green certified” wording and no sustainability page anywhere on the Myra Cove microsite. With no claim to test there is no contradiction, only an absence — and EdgeProp’s headline phrase about being “embraced by green tranquillity” is landscaping language, not a certification.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction is absolute, and this list is how it is honoured in public. This page carries 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 — none was sought and none is held back for later. These words appear on this page only in this paragraph. Five specific things were found and are deliberately withheld. (1) Phase 2’s marketing “from” figure. It sits below the filed statutory minimum of RM740,400. Three web pages carry it — and the independence check matters: all three are The Edge Communications titles, so it is ONE publisher, not three sources. No independent source carries a below-minimum Phase 2 figure. The figure is not printed here. (2) Phase 1’s marketing “from” figure — of which there are TWO, and they contradict each other. Both sit below the filed statutory minimum of RM521,300, both come from the same one publisher, and that publisher prints two different below-minimum numbers four and a half years apart. Neither figure is printed here. (3) PropertyGuru’s whole Myra Cove sale band is withheld on the same rule — its floor sits below the filed Phase 1 minimum. It is in any case an aggregate of individual agent resale listings and not a developer floor, and its quoted psf range spans a factor of eighteen, which is listing noise rather than a price. (4) A capital-appreciation projection. A mainstream property title published an expected capital-appreciation percentage by completion for this project in February 2022. That is a yield projection and the figure is withheld. Recorded here only as the fact that one was published. (5) A gifts and lucky-draw sales campaign. The developer’s own terms-and-conditions page carries a full campaign mechanic with tiered prizes, and the project page carries two further campaign popups. No prize, tier, gift or campaign benefit is recorded anywhere on this page. Recorded only as the fact that promotional campaigns exist and are time-limited. Ask me and I will tell you what is current; it does not belong on a public page. What IS published, and labelled every time: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum per registered phase, from the legally filed advertisement particulars, alongside the KPKT register’s own band for the same phase. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. And separately, the things nobody publishes at all, which Louis will go and ask the developer for: the land area of either phase as filed (both records read 0 mps, so no filed density exists); Phase 2’s own parcel size (the ~4.6 acres on this page is my subtraction from press figures); the mukim, the seksyen and Phase 1’s lot number; which of the two filed coordinates is correct, and therefore the project’s actual street address; which lake this is, its distance, who owns the land between it and the site, and whether the view corridor is protected; the car-park count as filed; any built-up area as filed — neither brochure prints one square foot; which blocks B1–B5 hold which layout types, on which floors, facing which way; the total-area figure behind “up to 2,060 sq ft”; the Phase 2 service charge and sinking fund rate (the only figure in existence anywhere is a four-and-a-half-year-old published estimate for the other phase); the share-unit schedule and strata-title status; whether any of the eight “space provision” facilities will ever be fitted out, by whom and when; the main contractor and the contract sum — no Bursa announcement for Myra Cove exists; any JV, land vendor or landowner; any photograph of the completed Phase 1 building; and whether the 3 unsold Phase 1 units are being offered, and under what permit, given that Phase 1’s APDL lapsed on 27 September 2026. That list is the page. If a figure is not above, it is because nobody published it — not because I left it out.

Myra Cove @ Cyberjaya — the questions buyers actually ask

Other projects worth putting beside this one

Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 against the filed KPKT HIMS brochures for both phases, the developer’s own APDL_MYRA_COVE_PH2_2026.pdf, TEDUH records 20164-1 and 20164-2, and the GreenRE Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze registers. Marketing information only — not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. Statutory particulars can change; verify at teduh.kpkt.gov.my before you act.