Pekan Baru Subang · Daerah Petaling · Selangor · MBSA

Myra Senja @ Subang 2 — Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Selangor

Q: Can a foreigner buy at Myra Senja?

On the filed prices, no — and the margin is not close. Selangor applies a zoned minimum purchase price for foreign buyers. Daerah Petaling sits in Zone 1, where the minimum is RM2,000,000 per unit, and foreigners are restricted to strata title property (individual-title landed property is not permitted). That threshold is commonly traced to Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014; the summary this page relies on is a private compilation, not a gazette, so have the current circular confirmed before acting. Now the arithmetic. The highest statutory filed price anywhere on this project is RM988,200 (the Blok A maximum), and the Blok B maximum is RM938,100. Not one unit in the registered phase reaches RM2,000,000, and not one reaches even RM1,000,000. So on its own filed prices Myra Senja sits outside the reach of a foreign buyer in Selangor Zone 1. The comparison and the arithmetic are mine; the price figures are the filed statutory ones. I say this plainly because a good part of my readership buys from outside Malaysia, and it is the first thing you need to know and the last thing any brochure mentions. For completeness: on building form the units would qualify, because they are filed Schedule H strata title housing accommodation. It is the price, not the form, that fails the test. If you are overseas and want Selangor stock, the threshold is what to shop against first — message me and I will shortlist projects whose filed band actually clears it.

Q: Are the ground-floor retail lots and the “boutique hotel” covered by the same protections?

No, and this is the real non-HDA gap here. The launch coverage publishes 74,432 sq ft of ground-floor retail, and PropertyGuru refers to “doorstep retail outlets”; the developer’s own page says only that conveniences are “a few steps away”. Neither filed component contains any retail, shop or commercial unit, and the APDL does not cover one. If those lots are sold they fall outside the HDA: no Schedule H, no statutory liquidated damages, no housing development account. And nothing at all is published about them — no count, no size, no title type and no statement of whether they are to be sold or retained. On the “boutique hotel component”: it is mentioned once, in an EdgeProp article of 25 June 2026 — and the same publisher’s launch coverage of the same project, seven months earlier, lists only the retail and no hotel. A boutique hotel is also a published component of the sibling Myra Embun @ Dengkil. It appears in no Myra Senja filing, and this page treats it as unconfirmed and probably carried across from the sibling. A buyer of a retail lot here would be buying a different legal animal from the apartments above it, and should insist on seeing which permit, if any, covers that sale.

Q: Does Myra Senja have any award or green certification? And is this a Gamuda project?

No award, no green rating, and definitively not Gamuda. On awards: there is no awards page on the brand’s site, the brand’s about page names no award at all, the project page names none, and no portal or press release names one. Myra Senja has no award of any kind from any source, and there is no brand-level award to be mistakenly borrowed either. Refuse any “award-winning” phrasing you see. On green certification: all four GreenRE rating registers were read as separate fetches, and there is no entry for Myra Senja in the reachable portion of the Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze registers. Three of the four tiers truncate, so that is a qualified negative and not a clean one — it is a safe source for a positive and never for a clean negative. Two traps sit in that register and both are avoided here: the Bronze row “Myra Idaman” (RES v3.3, PROVISIONAL, 11 February 2026) belongs to Myra Gardens Sdn Bhd, a different licensee, for a different project at Kundang, Rawang, in Daerah Gombak — and its energy-saving and carbon figures belong to that project, not this one; and the row “Senja by Ombak Villa Langkawi” belongs to M K Land Holdings Berhad and is unrelated to anything here. And a clean positive: the developer claims nothing. Its project page, its layouts page and the filed brochure carry no green logo, no rating and no “targeting” language — so there is no logo-without-a-rating trap on this project. GBI status is inconclusive (the GBI directory was unreachable), which is not the same as uncertified. On Gamuda: Myra is the brand of Oriental Interest Berhad, and the developer’s own footer says “The Myra brand is a product of OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd”. The KPKT developer register returns six Gamuda licensees and not one of them holds a project named Myra. Myra Senja is licensed to MYRA LAND SDN. BHD., whose registered office is OIB’s Penang office. It is not a Gamuda Land project and no source supports that it is.

384 units are filed. 576 are marketed. The government register, the developer’s own APDL document, the filed advertisement brochure and the developer’s own project page all describe two blocks of 192 units over 21 storeys. The press and the portals describe three towers of 20 storeys. Block C has no licence phase, no APDL and no filed anything — it is named exactly once, in a floor-plan label list inside the filed brochure. Licensed developer MYRA LAND SDN. BHD. 1142636-T (201501017302), a Myra-brand company of Oriental Interest Berhad — not Gamuda Land.

384 units filed · 576 marketed · Block C is in NO filingForeign buyers: not one unit qualifies — Selangor Zone 1 floor is RM2,000,000Approved 12-month extension: vacant possession 31 Aug 2028 → 31 Aug 2029All 384 filed units are Schedule H / HDA — no SOHO, no office parcelThe filed brochure files the APDL as a literal XXXX placeholderNot Rumah Selangorku — the RM270,000 floor clears every RSKU ceilingLeasehold 99 years to 17 December 2118

WhatsApp Louis about Myra Senja @ Subang 2 Jump to the statutory register

I reply with the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure, the developer’s own published APDL PDF and the KPKT TEDUH register record for phase 20164-3 — not a brochure summary.

KPKT TEDUH registerthe government project record for 20164-3 — the source of the APDL, the coordinates, the daerah, the two filed components, the Schedule H finding and the approved 12-month extension

KPKT HIMS filed brochurethe legally filed Butir-butir Iklan advertisement brochure — and the one document that files the APDL as XXXX

The developer’s own APDL PDFricher than the filing: it is the only document that prints the lot number, the pekan, the daerah, the PBT, the plan-approval date and the housing development account

Aerial site-context render. Subject caption-published on the developer’s own project page. Note the warning that belongs with it: the alt text on that page calls this file “central lake map”, and Myra Senja has no published lake — so the subject here rests on the filename and the page’s own copy, never on its alt text. Artist’s impression, not a photograph.

Front elevation and arrival view. Subject caption-published. The render shows the marketed massing; the filed documents cover two blocks of 21 storeys, not three of 20 — see the register block below before reading any tower count off a picture.

Swimming pool. Subject caption-published — the developer’s own copy names a pool. No source assigns it a level, and the “25-metre lap pool” dimension comes from the press releases, not from the developer’s own page or any filing.

Answer block

Myra Senja @ Subang 2 at a glance

Twenty facts, each with the document that prints it. Where nothing was printed — the land area, the mukim, a built-up schedule, a single rail distance — the row says so rather than filling the gap. On this project the blanks are the story.

Registered scheme name: MYRA SENJAnama: MYRA SENJA in the KPKT TEDUH record for 20164-3 and Nama Pemajuan: MYRA SENJA in the developer’s own APDL document. One scheme string, and that is a clean positive finding — no Residensi name, no Pangsapuri alias, no SPV-derived second name. Contrast the siblings, where the registered name does diverge: Myra Idaman is marketed as “Gardens Idaman” and Myra Saujana is registered as “Pangsapuri Saujana Idaman”. “@ Subang 2” is marketing, and it matches the developer’s own page.
Licensed developer: MYRA LAND SDN. BHD. · 1142636-T (201501017302)KPKT developer code 20164, register status Aktif, mempunyaiKesalahan: null (no recorded offence), 3 registered projects. Both company numbers are printed: the APDL PDF gives 1142636-T (201501017302), the filed brochure gives only 1142636-T, and the developer’s own page footer runs them together as 201501017302(1142636T).
Who the brand belongs to: Oriental Interest Berhad — not Gamuda Land“The Myra brand is a product of OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd” (200901008425 / 851411-M), says the developer’s own footer; OIB Marketing is a subsidiary of the Bursa-listed Oriental Interest Berhad. Myra is a brand, not a company and not the developer. It has nothing to do with Gamuda Land: the KPKT developer register returns six Gamuda licensees and not one of them holds a project named Myra. Your SPA counterparty is MYRA LAND SDN. BHD. — not Myra, not OIB Marketing, not Oriental Interest Berhad.
Live developer’s licence: 20164/09-2031/0454(R) · 28/09/2026 – 27/09/2031The register’s current licence. But the filed brochure and the developer’s own live sales page both still print the previous licence, 20164/09-2026/1211(R), which expired on 27 September 2026 — and the developer’s APDL PDF prints that same number with the suffix (A) instead of (R). So the developer is licensed to 2031; its published paperwork is stale. See the register block.
APDL permit: 20164-3/06-2028/0447(N)-(S) · 06/06/2025 – 05/06/2028 — LIVEPrinted in the KPKT register, in the developer’s own APDL PDF and in its page footer — all three agree. The legally filed advertisement brochure prints it as a literal XXXX placeholder with no dates. As at 8 October 2026 the permit has roughly 20 months to run (my arithmetic from the filed dates). The suffix is published as (N)-(S) by all three surfaces and is reproduced here as printed.
Tenure: Leasehold, 99 years, expiring 17 December 2118Pegangan Pajakan — 99 tahun, tamat 17 Disember 2118 in the filed brochure, repeated in the developer’s page footer. The register and the APDL PDF print no tenure at all, so this one rests on the brochure and the developer. A 99-year term to 17 Dec 2118 implies commencement on or about 17 Dec 2019 — that is my arithmetic, not a filed figure, and no source publishes the lease commencement date.
Restriction in interest: Yes — State Authority consent requiredFiled Sekatan Kepentingan: the land cannot be transferred, leased or charged without the consent of the Pihak Berkuasa Negeri (filed brochure; the same restriction is printed on the developer’s page).
Total units, as filed: 384 — Blok A 192 + Blok B 192Jumlah Unit: 384 unit (filed brochure), jumlahUnit: 384 across two components of 192 (register), and 192 + 192 unit diluluskan with 0 landowner units (APDL PDF). The developer’s own project page also says 384 in two blocks.
Total units, as marketed: 576 in three towersThe Edge, EdgeProp, PropertyGuru and propertysifu all publish 192 × 3. No filing recognises a third block. 20164-4 returns 404 from the register’s project API, and the developer register credits this licensee with exactly 3 projects — 20164-1 and 20164-2 (Myra Cove, Daerah Sepang) and 20164-3 (Myra Senja).
Storeys: 21 — filed four times over21 Tingkat (filed brochure), APDL Lampiran 1, tingkat: 21 (register) and the developer’s own page. The launch coverage says “three 20-storey residential towers”; PropertyGuru prints N/A.
Built form, as filed: Pangsapuri Servis (serviced apartment)APDL Lampiran 1 (twice) and komponen.jenis: Pangsapuri Servis in the register. The filed brochure calls it “Rumah Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan” in its statutory line and “Kondominium” elsewhere in the same document.
Sale contract: Schedule H on both filed componentspjb.jenis: Jadual H (register); Perjanjian: H (APDL Lampiran 1). So all 384 units are HDA-licensed, Schedule H strata title housing accommodation despite the “serviced apartment” label, with statutory delivery periods, statutory liquidated damages and a filed housing development account. No SOHO, no SOFO and no office parcel exists on this project, in any source. State that as a positive.
Housing development account: Maybank Islamic Berhad, a/c 562861902511, opened 29/05/2025From the developer’s own APDL PDF. The chargee over the land is also Maybank Islamic Berhad (filed brochure). A filed HDA account is one of the four things that make the Schedule H protection real rather than nominal.
Governing delivery date: 31 August 2029 — revised, and nothing is late yetThe register records the first SPA executed 31 August 2025, a 36-month original construction period, pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, 12 months additional period approved, and a revised period of 48 months. vacant possession therefore moves from 31 August 2028 to 31 August 2029. No CCC and no vacant possession is filed, both dates are still in the future, and construction stands at 20%.
Filed statutory price range: Blok A RM270,000 – RM988,200 · Blok B RM270,000 – RM938,100Harga Jualan Minimum – Maksimum exactly as the filed brochure and the developer’s own page footer print it. The KPKT register carries the same two bands but assigns the maxima to the opposite components — RM938,100 on the first, RM988,200 on the second. Read the project band as RM270,000 – RM988,200 and attribute the per-block split to the developer’s own documents, not to the register. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Foreign buyers: Not one filed unit qualifiesDaerah Petaling sits in Selangor Zone 1, where the minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM2,000,000 per unit and only strata title property is permitted. The highest filed statutory price on this project is RM988,200. The gap is more than half the threshold. The comparison is mine; the figures are the filed ones.
Land area: NOT PRINTED in any filingAbsent from the filed brochure, from the APDL PDF and from the register. Consequence: density cannot be computed from a filed figure, and the developer’s “low-density tower” claim cannot be verified. The only land figure anywhere is a portal 5.06 acres.
Affordable scheme: Not Rumah Selangorku — and no source names what it isThe marketed affordable floor is RM270,000, and every Rumah Selangorku tier caps below that (the scheme’s highest ceiling is RM250,000 for Type E / E Khas). So the marketed 556 sq ft units cannot be RSKU. The launch coverage calls them “Rumah Mampu Milik” — the generic Malay term, not a named state scheme — and no filing confirms the 96-unit tranche, the 556 sq ft size, an income ceiling, a first-home condition or a moratorium. Do not carry the siblings’ eligibility rules here: Myra Saujana is LPHS-registered under a different scheme name and a different licensee.
Facilities: “19 Facilities” claimed, with no listThe developer publishes a count and names only three — pool, gym, children’s play area. The filed advertisement brochure names no communal facility at all. Every other facility on this page is attributed to the single source that published it.
Awards and green rating: None, and none claimedNo award of any kind exists for Myra Senja or for any Myra project, on any source. On green: no entry for Myra Senja in the reachable portion of the GreenRE Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze registers (three of the four tiers truncate, so that is a qualified negative, not a clean one), and the developer claims nothing — no logo, no rating, no “targeting” language. The GreenRE Bronze row “Myra Idaman” belongs to Myra Gardens Sdn Bhd at Kundang, Rawang, Daerah Gombak — a different project, a different licensee, a different district.

Ask me for the filed documents

Jump to what you came for

This page is organised the way a buyer actually asks — and it opens with the gap between what is filed and what is sold, because on this project that gap is one third of the building.

The honest part

Ten things on this project that do not add up — shown, not smoothed over

Every item below is a disagreement between two published sources, or between a marketing claim and the absence of any filing behind it. Nothing here is inferred from a sibling Myra project, and nothing is estimated.

📄

384 filed, 576 marketed — and Block C is in no filing

Four statutory or developer surfaces say 384 units, two blocks, 21 storeys. Four consumer sources say 576 units, three towers, 20 storeys. “Block C” appears exactly once in the filed brochure, in a floor-plan label list — so it exists in the design and not in the permit. It has no registered phase, no APDL, no filed unit count, no filed price band and no filed completion date.

🏢

74,432 sq ft of retail that no permit covers

The launch coverage publishes 74,432 sq ft of ground-floor retail. Neither filed component contains any retail, shop or commercial unit, and the APDL does not cover one. If those lots are sold they sit outside the HDA: no Schedule H, no statutory liquidated damages, no housing development account. No source publishes a retail unit count, a lot size or a title type.

🏨

A “boutique hotel” mentioned once — and the sibling has one too

One EdgeProp article, dated 25 June 2026, lists “a boutique hotel component”. The same publisher’s launch coverage of the same project, seven months earlier, lists only the retail. And a boutique hotel is a published component of the sibling Myra Embun @ Dengkil. It is in no Myra Senja filing. Treated here as unconfirmed and probably carried across from the sibling.

🌍

No filed unit reaches the foreign-buyer floor

Daerah Petaling is Selangor Zone 1: RM2,000,000 minimum, strata only. The highest filed statutory price on the whole project is RM988,200. Not one unit in the registered phase qualifies — and the developer’s own sales claim that take-up was “driven entirely by Malaysian buyers” is consistent with exactly that.

📅

An approved 12-month extension — and nothing is late yet

The register carries pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, +12 months, 36 → 48 months, moving vacant possession from 31 Aug 2028 to 31 Aug 2029. Both dates are in the future, no CCC and no vacant possession is filed, and construction is at 20% — Level 3 of 21 as at Q3 2026. So this is an extension, not a delay. And here it is the filed brochure printing the stale date (“Mei 2028”) while the developer’s own page says June 2029 — the inverse of the usual pattern.

❌

The APDL is filed as a literal `XXXX`

The legally filed advertisement brochure prints the permit number as XXXX, with no dates. On its own that would make lapse unassessable. It is recoverable here, because the register and the developer’s own APDL PDF both print 20164-3/06-2028/0447(N)-(S), valid to 5 June 2028. The permit is live, not lapsed.

⚠

One licence, three renderings, one of them expired

20164/09-2026/1211(R) on the filed brochure and on the live sales page; the same number with suffix (A) on the developer’s own APDL PDF; and a different number entirely in the register — 20164/09-2031/0454(R), effective 28 September 2026. The developer is licensed to 2031 while advertising behind a licence string that expired on 27 September 2026.

💵

The register swaps the two price maxima

The filed brochure and the developer’s page both put RM988,200 on Blok A and RM938,100 on Blok B. The register’s component list puts them the other way round. Either its component order is not A-then-B, or one record has the blocks reversed. Published here as a project band with the per-block split attributed to the developer. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

📏

No filing prints a single built-up area

Not one unit area is labelled anywhere in the filed brochure; the APDL PDF prints none; the register files luas: 0 on both components. Every built-up figure on this page is therefore a marketing figure — and they disagree: 1,101 vs 1,108 vs 1,100 sq ft on T2A, and 1,409 vs 1,420 at the top of the range.

📊

“Low density” does not survive the arithmetic

Keluasan tanah is not printed in any filing, so density cannot be computed from a filed figure. On the only land figure in existence — a portal 5.06 acres — 384 units is about 76 per acre and 576 units is about 114 per acre (my arithmetic, on a portal denominator). Neither is low density in the Klang Valley. “12 units per level” is a floor-plate fact, not a density fact: 12 × 21 floors is exactly how you reach 192 a block. And the sibling Myra Embun is published at 5.08 acres, two hundredths of an acre away, which is its own reason to distrust the number.

Project DNA

What is actually being built, and the dated record behind it

The statistics band carries only figures that a filing, the government register or a named source published — and there is deliberately no density tile, because no filed land area exists to compute one from. The facilities columns separate the developer’s own three named facilities from its unlisted count of nineteen, and both from what only a press release or a single portal carries.

384Units — filed, 192 + 192 across two components

576Units — marketed, in no filing

2Blocks — filed (Blok A, Blok B)

21Storeys — filed four times; press says 20

Pangsapuri ServisFiled jenis bangunan

Jadual HFiled sale contract — all 384 units

99 yrLeasehold, expiring 17 Dec 2118

20%Construction progress — register, both components

31 Aug 2029Governing vacant possession — revised, +12 months

RM988,200Highest filed statutory price · floor RM2.0m for foreigners

Facilities — a count of nineteen, a list of three, and a filed brochure that names none

No source on this project assigns a single facility to a level. There is no level schedule, no podium floor number and no labelled facility plan — the developer publishes a count. Each column below names its one source.

Named by the developer itself

3 of the 19

Swimming pool
Gymnasium
Children’s play area
And that is the whole list. /about-development.html claims “19 Facilities” and publishes no list — so roughly sixteen of the nineteen are unidentified by the developer. Its surrounding copy adds only “facilities for workouts, pool time, and self-care”
The developer’s own image filenames are the only other developer-side evidence: pool-view, gym, kids-play, hangout, livingroom, front-view. A filename is not a facility schedule

Named only by the press releases

The Edge / EdgeProp

Landscaped podium
25-metre lap pool — the only dimensioned facility anywhere, and it is not on the developer’s own page or in any filing
Badminton courts
Reading room
Outdoor fitness spaces
Water play areas — in the 1 December 2025 coverage and dropped from the 25 June 2026 coverage by the same publisher

Named by one portal only — treat as unsupported

Single-source

Jacuzzi — propertysifu alone
Multipurpose hall, hangout swing, orchard garden, reflexology area — PropertyGuru alone
24-hour security — PropertyGuru alone, and not a developer claim on any page read
BBQ area — EdgeProp’s record and propertysifu, but absent from the developer’s own page and from both press releases
Jogging track, community parks, playgrounds, car park, park and garden — portal records only

What the filings say about facilities

Nothing at all

The filed advertisement brochure names no communal facility whatsoever. Its only room list is unit-level: living and dining, kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms, balcony — and Halaman Rumah, literally “house yard”, in a 21-storey tower. No marketing source mentions a yard, terrace or private garden on any type, so no private yard is published here; it is either ground-floor-specific or template language carried into the filing
No source states whether any of the nineteen facilities is fitted out or delivered as bare space — and with no published schedule at all, a “space only” caveat would be invisible
Car parking: NOT PRINTED in any filing. The filed brochure’s only punca counts are electrical points. The single figure in circulation is 2 bays, on three agent listings with unlabelled columns — agent data, not developer data, and not a filed one
Lifts per block, and the lift-to-unit ratio: not published by anyone

The dated record — every date below is filed or published, and the governing one is marked

17 Dec 2019Implied lease commencement — my arithmetic from the filed 2118 expiry. No source publishes it

21 Oct 2024Building plan MBSA.BGN.600-3/5/120 approved by MBSA — developer’s APDL PDF

03 Mar 2025Strata parcel approval JP 169003-01 to -63, Skim 16499, and Selangor SIFUS approval PTSEL/08/S/SIFUS/2025/7

29 May 2025Housing development account opened — Maybank Islamic, a/c 562861902511

06 Jun 2025APDL 20164-3/06-2028/0447(N)-(S) issued

31 Aug 2025First SPA executed — the date the statutory clock starts (register)

Q1 2026Foundation works nearing completion — the developer’s own site-progress page

Q2 2026Level 1 reached — developer’s site-progress page

Q3 2026Level 3 of 21 reached, and the register files 20% complete, status Lancar (on track)

28 Aug 2026A dated portal read of the KPKT panel reports 93 of 384 units sold — the denominator is the filed 384, not 576

27 Sep 2026The licence printed on the filed brochure and on the live sales page expires

28 Sep 2026Renewed licence 20164/09-2031/0454(R) takes effect — register

8 Oct 2026Everything on this page read and verified

“Mei 2028”Tarikh dijangka siap as the filed brochure prints it — stale, and matches no filed date

31 Aug 2028Original vacant possession under the first SPA — 36 months. Superseded

“June 2029”Completion as the developer’s own page prints it — close to the revised date, but not equal to it

31 Aug 2029GOVERNING vacant possession — 48 months after the first SPA, after an approved 12-month extension of time

5 Jun 2028APDL expiry — before the governing delivery date, so a renewal will be needed to keep advertising

17 Dec 2118Lease expiry. About 89 years unexpired at vacant possession — my arithmetic

Ask me for the register record and the progress returns

Layouts

Layouts — eight filed type codes, four published types, and not one filed area

This is the cleanest statement that can honestly be made about Myra Senja’s layouts: no filed document prints the built-up area of any unit type. Not the brochure, not the developer’s APDL PDF, and not the register, which files luas: 0 on both components. Every size below is a marketing figure, each attributed to the source that published it, and where the sources disagree both numbers are shown. The filed floor plans carry eight type codes plus a set of unexplained (M) variants; the developer publishes four types.

Type T2A floor plan at Myra Senja @ Subang 2 by Myra Land Sdn Bhd, Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Shah Alam, Selangor

Type T2A — 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms

Developer: 1,101 sq ft · EdgeProp’s new-launch record: 1,108 sq ft · agent listings round it to 1,100 sq ft

Filed code T2AAlso filed: T2A-1, T2A(M), T2A-1(M)No filed area

The only unit plan the developer publishes as an image, and the only type code confirmed by both a filename and the developer’s own heading. Three published sizes for one type, and EdgeProp contradicts itself on its own page — its type table says 1,108 sq ft while its summary says 1,101 sq ft. The filing prints nothing.

Ask for the T2A plan and the statutory unit schedule

The developer publishes a T2B plan on its own site; it is not reproduced here because only the T2A plan was individually verified. Ask and I will send the developer’s own file.

Type T2B — 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms

Developer: 1,101 sq ft · EdgeProp: 1,108 sq ft

Filed code T2BAlso filed: T2B-1No filed area

The developer’s one differentiating note is that T2B places the kitchen beside the balcony. The 25 June 2026 coverage adds that “selected Type T2B units” also get an island counter — a selective statement about some units, not a type specification, and no source says which units.

No T3 plan is reproduced here. The developer publishes one; it was not individually verified for this page.

Type T3 — 3+1 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms

Developer: 1,253 sq ft · portals publish the “3+1” category with no size

Filed code T3Also filed: T3(M)No filed area

The “+1” is the ordinary Malaysian utility or maid room, and T3 is not a dual-key unit. No source claims a dual key at Myra Senja, and the developer publishes 2 bathrooms on it — a dual key would normally need a second bathroom and a second entry. Do not read it as two tenancies.

No T4 plan is reproduced here. The top of the size range is the point: two figures circulate for it.

Type T4 — 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms

Developer and both press articles: 1,409 sq ft · PropertyGuru and propertysifu: 1,420 sq ft

Filed code T4Also filed: T4-1, T4(M), T4-1(M)No filed area

The largest published type. The top of the range is published as 1,409 sq ft by the developer and as 1,420 sq ft by two portals, and no filing settles it. The developer’s own note is a “wider living and dining area”.

No plan, no area and no unit count is published for T1 by the developer or by any filing. This card exists because the type does.

Type T1 — the one-bedroom type the developer does not publish

Press only: 556 sq ft, from RM270,000, 96 units, described as “Rumah Mampu Milik”

Filed code T1Also filed: T1(M)Not on the developer’s website at all

A one-bedroom, one-bathroom type exists in the registered phase — the register files bilikTidur: 1, 3, 4 and bilikMandi: 1, 2 on both components, and the filed floor-plan set opens with T1. But the developer’s own layouts page publishes only T2A, T2B, T3 and T4 and does not show T1 at all, and no filing prints T1’s area or how many T1 units there are. The filed RM270,000 minimum corroborates the price floor; nothing corroborates the 96 or the 556 sq ft, so neither is presented here as a filed number.

Nothing to show: these codes appear on filed pages with no plan published for them on any marketing surface.

The `(M)` variants, and the `-1` suffixes — unexplained

Filed codes: T1 · T2A · T2A-1 · T2B · T2B-1 · T3 · T4 · T4-1 — plus T1(M), T2A(M), T2A-1(M), T3(M), T4(M), T4-1(M)

Eight base codes filedSix (M) variants filedFour types published

No source anywhere explains what (M) means, and this page does not guess. Nor does any source say what T2A-1, T2B-1 and T4-1 are, or whether they are sold at all. So the filed plan set is wider than the marketed one, and the difference is undocumented. Ask for the full statutory unit schedule before you choose a layout.

Square metres: no source publishes any square-metre figure for any type, and none is computed here. Bedroom range: the register files 1, 3 and 4 bedrooms — there is no 2-bedroom type in the filed range, which contradicts one portal’s implied continuous 1–4 summary. The three agent listings round the sizes differently again (1,400 / 1,300 / 1,100 sq ft) and carry asking prices that are not statutory figures; those asking prices are not reproduced on this page. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

Gallery

The developer’s own images — with the subject, the grade and the warning that belongs with them

Aerial site context view at Myra Senja @ Subang 2 by Myra Land Sdn Bhd, Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Shah Alam, Selangor — Aerial site-context render. Subject **caption-published** on the developer’s own project page. Note the warning that belongs with it: the **alt text** on that page calls this file *“central lake map”*, and Myra Senja has **no published lake** — so the subject here rests on the filename and the page’s own copy, never on its alt text. Artist’s impression, not a photograph.

Tower front elevation and arrival view at Myra Senja @ Subang 2 by Myra Land Sdn Bhd, Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Shah Alam, Selangor — Front elevation and arrival view. Subject **caption-published**. The render shows the marketed massing; the **filed** documents cover **two** blocks of 21 storeys, not three of 20 — see the register block below before reading any tower count off a picture.

Swimming pool at Myra Senja @ Subang 2 by Myra Land Sdn Bhd, Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Shah Alam, Selangor — Swimming pool. Subject **caption-published** — the developer’s own copy names a pool. **No source assigns it a level**, and the *“25-metre lap pool”* dimension comes from the press releases, not from the developer’s own page or any filing.

Gymnasium at Myra Senja @ Subang 2 by Myra Land Sdn Bhd, Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Shah Alam, Selangor — Gymnasium. Subject **caption-published** — the developer’s own copy names a gym. The original file is small and portrait (480 × 618), which is why it sits here rather than in the hero.

Living room interior at Myra Senja @ Subang 2 by Myra Land Sdn Bhd, Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Shah Alam, Selangor — Living room interior. Subject **caption-published**. A dressed render of a show interior; **no unit type is stated for it by any source**, so it is not captioned as T2A, T3 or T4, and nothing in it should be read as the delivered specification.

Why there are six images here and not seventeen. The alt text on Myra Senja’s own project page is contaminated with a sibling project’s name: it labels Myra Senja’s own logo “Myra Tenuman”, labels its own amenities map “myra tenuman amenities map image”, and captions two images “central lake map” for a project with no published lake. So no image on this page is graded on its alt text — every subject above rests on an exact filename plus the page’s own copy. Three consequences, stated plainly. First, the developer’s amenities map is deliberately not used at all, because its alt text attributes it to a different project and a map is the one image type where the wrong file would publish wrong distances. Second, the seventeen numbered gallery images on the developer’s site carry only “Gallery Image N” as alt text — there is no published subject for any of them, so none is reproduced and none is captioned. Third, the brand’s shared /images/renderslider/ tree holds every Myra project’s render side by side, so nothing was picked out of it by eye. No image here was taken from any sibling Myra directory. All six are renders or plans, not photographs. The developer also publishes a 360° virtual tour, an e-brochure (image-only, with no text layer, so nothing in it could be verified) and a dated site-progress gallery.

Ask for the full gallery and the virtual tour

Location

Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling — the filed proof, and the rail distance nobody publishes

The pin below is the registered coordinate from the KPKT project record, not a geocode of a marketing address. Location is worth settling carefully here, because four different township labels are in circulation and three of them are marketing: the filed locality is Pekan Baru Subang in Daerah Petaling, and the approving authority is Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam.

Open in Google Maps

Negeri Selangor · Daerah Petaling — filedBandar/Pekan: Pekan Baru Subang — a gazetted pekan, not a mukimPBT: Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA) · plan MBSA.BGN.600-3/5/120LOT 64813 — Lot Tuan Tanah field blankMukim: NOT PRINTED by any source

No filed document prints a project site address at all — the filed brochure prints only the sales gallery. The addresses in circulation are marketing: Persiaran Angkasa, 40150 (PropertyGuru), “Subang 2, Shah Alam” (the developer and both press articles), “Shah Alam, Selangor, 40150” (EdgeProp’s record) and “Subang Bestari” (propertysifu, which files it under the adjoining township). The register prints no project poskod, so 40150 is published here as the marketing postcode only. The developer’s own brand-site location filter groups this project under “Sungai Buloh, Selangor” while its project page calls it Subang 2 — both are compatible with Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, and neither is the filed term.

What the filings actually print about where this is

Negeri Selangor, Daerah Petaling — in the register and in the developer’s own APDL PDF. Not “Shah Alam” and not “Sungai Buloh”: EdgeProp’s record prints the district as “Shah Alam”, which is a city, not a daerah
Bandar/Pekan Pekan Baru Subang — the land locality field in the developer’s APDL PDF. Read it carefully: this is a gazetted pekan, not a mukim
Mukim: NOT PRINTED by the APDL PDF, by the filed brochure or by the register. Portals that imply “Mukim Sungai Buloh” are guessing, and no mukim is published on this page
Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam — in the APDL PDF and in the filed brochure, where it is misspelt “Maljis” Bandaraya Shah Alam
The location proof: building plan approval MBSA.BGN.600-3/5/120, approved 21 October 2024. The MBSA. prefix is MBSA’s own file prefix and MBSA’s jurisdiction is the City of Shah Alam. (The filed brochure prints the same reference with a stray full stop: MBSA.BGN.600.-3/5/120)
LOT 64813 — the lot untuk dijual in the APDL PDF. The Lot Tuan Tanah field is blank, consistent with no separate landowner parcel
Strata/parcel approval JP 169003-01 to JP 169003-63, Skim 16499, dated 3 March 2025, and Selangor SIFUS approval PTSEL/08/S/SIFUS/2025/7, serial P/10-2025, same date. Sixty-three JP numbers against 384 filed units is unexplained by any source — do not read 63 as a unit count or as anything else
Keluasan tanah: NOT PRINTED — absent from all three statutory surfaces
No full title reference is published: no PT number, no title number, no hakmilik reference and no plan sheet — only the lot

The twelve distances the developer publishes — its own figures, in km

HELP University — 2 km (PropertyGuru agrees, and names the campus as “Subang 2”, which is a useful second township confirmation)
Star Avenue Lifestyle Mall — 2 km (PropertyGuru agrees)
SK Subang Bestari — 2 km (PropertyGuru agrees)
Subang Airport, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah — 4 km
Emporis, Kota Damansara — 5 km
TLS International School · Pine Hills International School · Thomson Hospital, Kota Damansara — 6 km each (PropertyGuru agrees on Thomson)
Kota Damansara Community Forest — 7 km
Elmina Lakeside Mall · Sunway Specialist Centre Damansara — 8 km each (PropertyGuru agrees on Sunway)
Bukit Jelutong Eco Community Park — 10 km
Every figure above is the developer’s own, and every one of them is a round kilometre — which is itself a sign of marketing rounding rather than measurement. None was estimated here, and none was copied from a sibling Myra project

Rail and roads — and the one string you must not copy

No source gives any distance to any rail station. Not the developer, not PropertyGuru, not EdgeProp, not propertysifu. None is estimated on this page, even though the filed coordinate would permit a calculation
PropertyGuru names “KG05/SBK05 Kwasa Sentral MRT station” and gives no distance. That is ONE station written in two code systems — Kwasa Sentral is KG05 on the MRT Kajang Line, and SBK is the line’s legacy Sungai Buloh–Kajang designation. It is not two stations, and it must not be copied as two
The Putrajaya Line does not serve Kwasa Sentral — the Kajang Line does
Kwasa Damansara MRT and Subang Jaya KTM are in the general area and no source publishes a distance to either
Expressways named by the developer with no distance to any interchange: DASH (Damansara–Shah Alam Elevated), GCE (Guthrie Corridor), NKVE and KESAS/Shah Alam Expressway
The one access figure published anywhere is “about two minutes’ drive” to DASH (The Edge / EdgeProp) — a time, not a distance, and it is left as a time here
1 Utama, Citta Mall, IKEA and HELP International School are named by the developer or PropertyGuru as a “short drive” with no figure at all

Not published by anyone — therefore not on this page

Any distance, in metres or minutes, to any MRT or KTM station
Any distance to any expressway interchange
Subang 2 or Subang Bestari town centre, any mosque, any wet market, any government clinic and any hospital inside Shah Alam itself — not named by any source at all
The distance from the sales gallery to the site. The gallery is at No. 9, 11 & 11A, Jalan Zuhrah BH U5/BH, Taman Subang Murni, 40150 Shah Alam (open 9.30am–5.30pm Mon–Fri, 9.30am–8.00pm Sat–Sun) — and no source states how far that is from the project
Any flood, TOD, high-tension or airport-noise disclosure. The project is published at 4 km from Subang Airport and no source addresses aircraft noise or height restrictions — ask, because it is a fair question at that distance
Whether the land was converted, and from what

Location particulars read from the developer’s own published APDL PDF, the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure, the KPKT TEDUH project record for 20164-3, the developer’s project and layouts pages, and the named portal pages — all on 8 October 2026. An independent subsales directory confirms Pekan Baru Subang as a locality in Daerah Petaling, Selangor. No distance on this page was estimated, converted from a drive time, or copied from another project.

The spine of this page

Statutory register — MYRA SENJA, phase `20164-3`, filed against recovered

Malaysian law requires a licensed housing developer to file and display statutory advertisement particulars, and that filing is public. Myra Senja has four statutory or developer-published surfaces and they do not agree with each other, so both columns are printed rather than one reconciled version. Column (A) is the legally filed HIMS advertisement brochure exactly as it prints. Column (B) is what the KPKT TEDUH register and the developer’s own APDL PDF recover — including the permit number that column (A) files as XXXX, the live licence that column (A) has not caught up with, and the approved 12-month extension that no marketing source on this project mentions.

(A) The legally filed HIMS advertisement brochure — as printed (B) KPKT TEDUH register + the developer’s own APDL PDF — what they recover

Nama Pemajuan MYRA SENJA — the only registered scheme name
Nama Pemaju MYRA LAND SDN. BHD.
No. Pendaftaran Pemaju 1142636-T on the filed brochure · 1142636-T (201501017302) on the developer’s APDL PDF · 201501017302(1142636T) on its page footer — three renderings of two numbers; the register’s project record prints none
No. Lesen Pemaju 20164/09-2026/1211(R) (filed brochure) · 20164/09-2026/1211(A) (developer’s APDL PDF, issued 28/11/2024) · 20164/09-2026/1211(R) again on the live sales page
Tempoh Sah Lesen 28/09/2023 – 27/09/2026 — EXPIRED, eleven days before this page was built, and still printed on the live sales page
No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan (APDL) FILED AS A LITERAL XXXX PLACEHOLDER — no number, no dates
Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan “Maljis” Bandaraya Shah Alam — misspelt in the filed document
No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan MBSA.BGN.600.-3/5/120 — with a stray full stop
Jenis Bangunan Rumah Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan — and the same document calls it “Kondominium” elsewhere
Jumlah Unit 384 — Blok A 192, Blok B 192
Bilangan Tingkat 21 · Bilangan Blok 2 (Blok A, Blok B)
Pegangan Tanah Pegangan Pajakan — 99 tahun, tamat 17 Disember 2118
Sekatan Kepentingan land not transferable, leasable or chargeable without Pihak Berkuasa Negeri consent
Bebanan Tanah MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD
Tarikh Dijangka Siap MEI 2028 — stale: it matches neither statutory date
Harga Jualan Minimum – Maksimum Blok A RM270,000 – RM988,200 · Blok B RM270,000 – RM938,100
Diskaun Bumiputera NO SUCH FIELD
Keluasan Tanah · Keluasan Lantai · Tempat Letak Kereta NOT PRINTED — none of the three
Kelulusan iklan “IKLAN INI TELAH DILULUSKAN OLEH JABATAN PERUMAHAN NEGARA”
Block C named once, in a floor-plan label list — and nowhere in the sales particulars Nama Pemajuan MYRA SENJA (both surfaces)
Nama Pemaju MYRA LAND SDN. BHD. · KPKT code 20164 · status Aktif · mempunyaiKesalahan: null · 3 projects
No. Lesen Pemaju (LIVE) 20164/09-2031/0454(R) · 28/09/2026 – 27/09/2031 — the renewal the developer’s own paperwork has not caught up with
No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan (APDL) 20164-3/06-2028/0447(N)-(S) — printed in full by the register, by the developer’s APDL PDF and by its page footer
Tempoh Sah Permit 06/06/2025 – 05/06/2028 · LIVE as at 8 Oct 2026, about 20 months to run (my arithmetic)
Jenis iklan diluluskan Brosur, Gantung (APDL PDF only)
Negeri / Daerah / Bandar-Pekan Selangor / Petaling / Pekan Baru Subang — no mukim is printed by anyone
Pihak Berkuasa Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam · plan MBSA.BGN.600-3/5/120, approved 21/10/2024
Lot LOT 64813 · Lot Tuan Tanah blank
Koordinat berdaftar 3.164278 N, 101.545035 E
Petak / Skim JP 169003-01 – JP 169003-63, Skim 16499, 03/03/2025 — 63 numbers against 384 units, unexplained
SIFUS (Selangor) PTSEL/08/S/SIFUS/2025/7, serial P/10-2025, 03/03/2025
Jenis Bangunan Pangsapuri Servis — two identical component rows
Jenis Perjanjian (PJB) Jadual H — both components
Akaun Pemajuan Perumahan (HDA) Maybank Islamic Berhad, a/c 562861902511, opened 29/05/2025
Jumlah Unit 384 (192 + 192) · landowner units 0 · Bilangan Tingkat 21
Bilik Tidur / Bilik Mandi 1, 3, 4 / 1, 2 — there is no 2-bedroom type in the filed range
Keluasan unit luas: 0 on both components — no built-up area is filed anywhere
Harga (register band) component 1 RM270,000 – RM938,100 · component 2 RM270,000 – RM988,200 — the two maxima are on the OPPOSITE blocks from the filed brochure
PJB pertama 31/08/2025 · Tempoh asal 36 bulan → vacant possession 31/08/2028
Pindaan tempoh serah kosong Ya — +12 bulan approved → 48 bulan → vacant possession 31/08/2029
CCC — none filed · Tarikh serah kosong — none filed
Status Lancar (on track) · Berfasa (phased) · Kemajuan 20% on both components
Tempoh Sah Lesen (expired string on the sales page) 28/09/2023 – 27/09/2026 — superseded by the live licence above
Phase 20164-4 404 — it does not exist. There is no Block C phase.

(A) The legally filed HIMS advertisement brochure — as printed	(B) KPKT TEDUH register + the developer’s own APDL PDF — what they recover
Nama Pemajuan MYRA SENJA — the only registered scheme name Nama Pemaju MYRA LAND SDN. BHD. No. Pendaftaran Pemaju 1142636-T on the filed brochure · 1142636-T (201501017302) on the developer’s APDL PDF · 201501017302(1142636T) on its page footer — three renderings of two numbers; the register’s project record prints none No. Lesen Pemaju 20164/09-2026/1211(R) (filed brochure) · 20164/09-2026/1211(A) (developer’s APDL PDF, issued 28/11/2024) · 20164/09-2026/1211(R) again on the live sales page Tempoh Sah Lesen 28/09/2023 – 27/09/2026 — EXPIRED, eleven days before this page was built, and still printed on the live sales page No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan (APDL) FILED AS A LITERAL `XXXX` PLACEHOLDER — no number, no dates Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan “Maljis” Bandaraya Shah Alam — misspelt in the filed document No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan `MBSA.BGN.600.-3/5/120` — with a stray full stop Jenis Bangunan Rumah Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan — and the same document calls it “Kondominium” elsewhere Jumlah Unit 384 — Blok A 192, Blok B 192 Bilangan Tingkat 21 · Bilangan Blok 2 (Blok A, Blok B) Pegangan Tanah Pegangan Pajakan — 99 tahun, tamat 17 Disember 2118 Sekatan Kepentingan land not transferable, leasable or chargeable without Pihak Berkuasa Negeri consent Bebanan Tanah MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD Tarikh Dijangka Siap MEI 2028 — stale: it matches neither statutory date Harga Jualan Minimum – Maksimum Blok A RM270,000 – RM988,200 · Blok B RM270,000 – RM938,100 Diskaun Bumiputera NO SUCH FIELD Keluasan Tanah · Keluasan Lantai · Tempat Letak Kereta NOT PRINTED — none of the three Kelulusan iklan “IKLAN INI TELAH DILULUSKAN OLEH JABATAN PERUMAHAN NEGARA” Block C named once, in a floor-plan label list — and nowhere in the sales particulars	Nama Pemajuan MYRA SENJA (both surfaces) Nama Pemaju MYRA LAND SDN. BHD. · KPKT code 20164 · status Aktif · `mempunyaiKesalahan: null` · 3 projects No. Lesen Pemaju (LIVE) 20164/09-2031/0454(R) · 28/09/2026 – 27/09/2031 — the renewal the developer’s own paperwork has not caught up with No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan (APDL) 20164-3/06-2028/0447(N)-(S) — printed in full by the register, by the developer’s APDL PDF and by its page footer Tempoh Sah Permit 06/06/2025 – 05/06/2028 · LIVE as at 8 Oct 2026, about 20 months to run (my arithmetic) Jenis iklan diluluskan Brosur, Gantung (APDL PDF only) Negeri / Daerah / Bandar-Pekan Selangor / Petaling / Pekan Baru Subang — no mukim is printed by anyone Pihak Berkuasa Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam · plan `MBSA.BGN.600-3/5/120`, approved 21/10/2024 Lot LOT 64813 · Lot Tuan Tanah blank Koordinat berdaftar 3.164278 N, 101.545035 E Petak / Skim `JP 169003-01` – `JP 169003-63`, Skim `16499`, 03/03/2025 — 63 numbers against 384 units, unexplained SIFUS (Selangor) `PTSEL/08/S/SIFUS/2025/7`, serial `P/10-2025`, 03/03/2025 Jenis Bangunan Pangsapuri Servis — two identical component rows Jenis Perjanjian (PJB) Jadual H — both components Akaun Pemajuan Perumahan (HDA) Maybank Islamic Berhad, a/c 562861902511, opened 29/05/2025 Jumlah Unit 384 (192 + 192) · landowner units 0 · Bilangan Tingkat 21 Bilik Tidur / Bilik Mandi 1, 3, 4 / 1, 2 — there is no 2-bedroom type in the filed range Keluasan unit `luas: 0` on both components — no built-up area is filed anywhere Harga (register band) component 1 RM270,000 – RM938,100 · component 2 RM270,000 – RM988,200 — the two maxima are on the OPPOSITE blocks from the filed brochure PJB pertama 31/08/2025 · Tempoh asal 36 bulan → vacant possession 31/08/2028 Pindaan tempoh serah kosong Ya — +12 bulan approved → 48 bulan → vacant possession 31/08/2029 CCC — none filed · Tarikh serah kosong — none filed Status *Lancar* (on track) · *Berfasa* (phased) · Kemajuan 20% on both components Tempoh Sah Lesen (expired string on the sales page) 28/09/2023 – 27/09/2026 — superseded by the live licence above Phase `20164-4` 404 — it does not exist. There is no Block C phase.

Read the two columns together, because the differences are the point. Five of them are material. First, the APDL: the legally filed advertisement files it as a literal XXXX, and it is only recoverable because the register and the developer’s own PDF print it — 20164-3/06-2028/0447(N)-(S), live to 5 June 2028. Second, the licence: the filed brochure and the live sales page both print a licence that expired on 27 September 2026, while the register shows a renewal effective the next day — and the developer’s own PDF prints the same expired number with a different suffix. Third, the delivery date: the register carries an approved 12-month extension moving vacant possession from 31 August 2028 to 31 August 2029, and here it is the filing that prints the stale date (“Mei 2028”) while the developer’s own page prints June 2029 — the inverse of the usual pattern. Fourth, the price: both records carry the same two bands, and the register assigns the two maxima to the opposite blocks. Fifth, Block C: it is named once in column (A)’s floor-plan labels and appears nowhere in either column’s particulars, and 20164-4 is a 404. Three absences run across both columns and are not cosmetic: no land area (which is why this page prints no filed density), no built-up schedule of any kind, and no car-park count.

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 Minimum / Maksimum) — column (A) as the filed advertisement brochure prints it and as the developer’s own page footer repeats it, column (B) as the KPKT register’s own harga band prints it per component. They are project-wide filed bands and never a per-type or per-unit price: no source publishes which type falls where inside the band, and the RM270,000 floor belongs to the affordable tranche, not to the open market. 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, not one unit qualifies

Daerah Petaling sits in Selangor Zone 1, where the minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM2,000,000 per unit, and foreigners are restricted to strata title property. (That threshold is commonly traced to Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014; the 2026 summary relied on here is a private compilation, not a gazette, so verify the current circular before advising any client.) Now hold it against the filings. The highest statutory filed price anywhere on this project is RM988,200, the Blok A maximum, and Blok B’s maximum is RM938,100. Not one unit in the registered phase reaches RM2,000,000 — and not one reaches even RM1,000,000. So on its own filed prices, Myra Senja is outside the reach of a foreign buyer in Selangor Zone 1, and that is said here plainly rather than buried. The comparison and the arithmetic are mine; the price figures are the filed statutory ones. It is consistent with the developer’s own published sales claim that take-up on one block was “driven entirely by Malaysian buyers”. On building form the units would qualify, since both components are filed Schedule H strata title housing accommodation — it is the price, not the form, that fails the test. Selangor’s other zones: Zone 2 is also RM2,000,000, and Zone 3 — Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — is RM1,000,000. Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory apply RM1,000,000 with EPU consent. If you are buying from overseas, shop the threshold first and have eligibility confirmed in writing before a booking form is signed.

Construction progress — how much is actually built?

20% on both filed components, status Lancar (on track), with no CCC and no vacant possession filed — the register shows - for both. That percentage follows the developer’s latest statutory progress return, and it is the government’s figure, not the developer’s marketing. The developer’s own site-progress page corroborates it with a dated sequence: foundation works nearing completion in Q1 2026, Level 1 in Q2 2026, Level 3 in Q3 2026 — three levels of twenty-one, with 22 months left to the original delivery date and 34 to the revised one. Read together, those two records are why nothing on this project can honestly be called late. One independent dated read of the KPKT panel, on 28 August 2026, reports 93 of 384 units sold — and the denominator there is the filed 384, which is useful corroboration that the register treats this as one 384-unit phase rather than a 576-unit one. A separate developer sales claim of a 60% take-up on one block, published 25 June 2026, sits oddly against the filing: a single APDL covers both Blok A and Blok B, yet the blocks are marketed as separate launch phases and the site-progress URL is /phase-1. One note on reading the register: peratus there is a construction-progress percentage — it is not a Bumiputera quota and not any kind of price concession.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing policy, applied to every project page on this site: no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera figure, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, and no yield or ROI projection is published here, ever. On Myra Senja that specifically means four things are withheld in full: a brand-partnership furnishing package promoted on the project’s launch coverage, the ringgit value an executive attached to it, a set of items stated to be given for a limited introductory period to one unit type only, and a rewards campaign promoted in a pop-up on the project’s own home page. Their existence is recorded; their contents, their itemisation and their stated values are not, and will not be. Also not reproduced: two portal open-market “from” figures that disagree with each other and three rounded agent asking prices from a single agent — all of them sit above the filed statutory minimum, none of them is a statutory figure, and none can be tied to an SPA price. No below-minimum figure was found on any source, so nothing had to be suppressed on that head either. And no Diskaun Bumiputera field exists in any filing read — not in the brochure, not in the APDL PDF, not in the register — so there is nothing withheld there; the field simply is not printed, and that absence is itself the finding. Finally, the blanks. Everything a buyer would ask that no source answers: the filed land area, the mukim, the full title reference beyond LOT 64813, the lease commencement date, whether the land was converted and from what, the car-park bays per unit and in total, the lifts per block, the built-up area of any unit type including the affordable T1, what (M) means on six filed type codes, what T2A-1, T2B-1 and T4-1 are and whether they are sold, the strata share units and accessory parcels, any specification at all, which floors the affordable units sit on and whether they share lifts and facilities with the open-market units, Block C’s legal status, timing, unit mix and price band, the retail lots’ count, size, title type and permit coverage, whether the boutique hotel exists here at all, the affordable scheme’s name and eligibility rules, any Bumiputera quota or release schedule, the maintenance and sinking-fund rates from any source other than one portal, any GDV in a filing, the main contractor, architect, engineer, quantity surveyor and solicitors, the end-financier panel, any distance to any rail station or expressway interchange, and any flood, TOD, high-tension or airport-noise disclosure for a project published at 4 km from Subang Airport. Ask me and I will put any of them to MYRA LAND SDN. BHD. in writing.

Developer

Myra Land Sdn Bhd — an OIB company, not a Gamuda one, and the credentials this page refuses to borrow

The licensed developer is MYRA LAND SDN. BHD., company registration 1142636-T (201501017302), named in the filed advertisement brochure, in its own published APDL document and in the KPKT register as developer code 20164, status Aktif, mempunyaiKesalahan: null — no recorded offence — with 3 registered projects. Its live licence is 20164/09-2031/0454(R), valid 28 September 2026 to 27 September 2031. Its alamat berdaftar is 170-09-01, Livingston Tower, Jalan Argyll, 10050 Bandar George Town, Pulau Pinang and its alamat perniagaan is RA-G-23A, Eve Suite @ Ara Damansara, No. 1A, Jalan PJU 1A/41, 47301 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. The telephone is 03-7680 1018, and the register’s number agrees with the developer’s own — worth noting, because in this series they often do not. The register carries no e-mail and no website for this licensee. Your SPA counterparty is this company — not Myra, not OIB Marketing, not Oriental Interest Berhad.

“Myra” is a brand, not a developer and not a company — and it is not a Gamuda Land brand. The developer’s own footer says it in terms: “The Myra brand is a product of OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd” (200901008425 / 851411-M), a subsidiary of the Bursa-listed Oriental Interest Berhad. Three independent proofs that Gamuda has nothing to do with it: the brand site names its own brand owner as OIB Marketing; the KPKT register licenses Myra Senja to MYRA LAND SDN. BHD., whose registered office is OIB’s Penang office and whose business address is OIB’s Ara Damansara office; and the KPKT developer register returns six Gamuda licensees, not one of which holds any project named Myra. A second naming trap sits on the corporate side: “Oriental Interest Berhad” is not itself a licensed developer in Malaysia. A register search on “Oriental” returns six licensees and none of them is Oriental Interest Berhad — the group licenses through separately named SPVs, of which eight were found: Myra Land and Myra Gardens, plus OIB Properties (C), (CV), (K), (KV), (PRV) and (SW). EdgeProp’s own new-launch page names the developer as “Oriental Interest Berhad” in one field and “Myra Land Sdn. Bhd.” in another, on the same page. PropertyGuru and propertysifu get the licensee right.

One licence serial, three registered phases, two completely different projects in two different districts — and this is the trap to avoid on Myra Senja. Licence serial 20164 carries 20164-1 MYRA COVE, Daerah Sepang (Cyberjaya), 279 units, 25 storeys, completed — CCC 3 December 2025, vacant possession 5 January 2026; 20164-2 MYRA COVE, also Sepang, 421 units, under construction; and 20164-3 MYRA SENJA, Daerah Petaling, 384 units, 21 storeys, 20% built. Never carry a Myra Cove figure onto a Myra Senja page — not its CCC, not its vacant possession, not its 279 or 421 units, not its 25 storeys, not its coordinates and not its price band — even though a search on licence 20164 returns all three. Myra Cove’s filed coordinates are roughly 28 km from Myra Senja’s (my arithmetic on two filed coordinate pairs). Nothing on this page comes from either Myra Cove phase.

On brand-level credentials, this page borrows nothing, and the refusals are specific. The brand site claims “over 26,313 units” delivered in one place and “more than 28,000” homes in another — on the same page — and “9 projects” in one place and “12 projects” in another, while its own project list shows ten. Those are group-level figures across at least eight licensed SPVs since 1986 or 1993 (the brand site gives both dates and explains neither), and they are not Myra Senja figures and not this licensee’s. The brand also dates itself: “Myra was introduced in 2017” — which dates the brand, not the project. The RM400 million GDV in both press articles is a company figure, not a filed one: no filing prints a GDV, no Bursa announcement for Myra Senja was found, and the GDV is quoted against the unfiled 576-unit project, so it cannot be apportioned to the 384 filed units. And one more borrowing hazard, recorded because it is real: the sibling Myra Embun @ Dengkil is published at 5.08 acres with a boutique hotel among its components — and both of those have shown up attached to Myra Senja. Neither is used here as a Myra Senja fact.

On awards and green certification: there is nothing, and nothing is claimed. There is no awards page on the brand’s site, the brand’s about page names no award at all, the project page names none, and no portal or press release names one. Myra Senja has no award of any kind from any source, and there is no brand-level award available to borrow by mistake either. On green: all four GreenRE rating registers were read separately, and there is no entry for Myra Senja in the reachable portion of the Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze tables — and because three of the four truncate, that is stated here as a qualified negative and never a clean one. The Bronze table holds two rows that could be mistaken for this project and are not: “Myra Idaman” (RES v3.3, PROVISIONAL, 11 February 2026) is Myra Gardens Sdn Bhd’s 616-unit project at Kundang, Rawang, in Daerah Gombak, under Selangor’s Rumah Idaman programme — a different licensee, a different district, a different scheme, and its energy-saving and carbon figures belong to it and not to this project; and “Senja by Ombak Villa Langkawi” belongs to M K Land Holdings Berhad and is wholly unrelated. The clean positive is that the developer claims nothing: the project page, the layouts page and the filed brochure carry no green logo, no rating and no “targeting” language — the only approval the filed brochure mentions is advertising approval by the Jabatan Perumahan Negara. So there is no logo-without-a-rating trap and no slug-versus-body contradiction on this project. GBI status is inconclusive, because the GBI directory could not be reached — which is not the same as uncertified.

Two structural gaps are worth naming, because they are why several blanks on this page stay blank. First, no joint venture, land vendor or landowner is named anywhere, and the APDL’s Lot Tuan Tanah field is blank, which is consistent with there being no separate landowner parcel. Second, no architect, main contractor, engineer, quantity surveyor or solicitor is published by any source, and no Bursa contract announcement for Myra Senja was found — so the usual route to a contract sum and a verified lot address does not exist here. A third, smaller gap: the developer’s own e-brochure fetches successfully but is image-only with no text layer, so nothing in it could be verified against the statutory block, and its 17 numbered gallery images carry no published subject. Separately, two things that look like red flags and are not: one portal has no record of this project at all, and the official microsite’s bare directory URL loops on redirects unless index.html is requested. Both are recorded so nobody re-walks them.

Developer, award and certification particulars read from the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure for phase 20164-3; the developer’s own published APDL PDF; the KPKT TEDUH project record for 20164-3 and the 404 on 20164-4; the KPKT developer register searched on MYRA, OIB, ORIENTAL and GAMUDA, with a positive control run first so that a short or zero result could be trusted; the TEDUH records for 20164-1, 20164-2 and the sibling Myra Idaman phase; Selangor’s LPHS affordable-housing register; all four GreenRE rating registers as separate reads; the developer’s own project, layouts, brand, corporate and site-progress pages; and the named press and portal pages. All read on 8 October 2026. No award, green rating, distance, land area, facility or image on this page was taken from Myra Cove, Myra Embun, Myra Idaman, Myra Saujana or Myra Tenuman.

FAQ

Questions buyers actually ask about Myra Senja @ Subang 2

Is Myra Senja 384 units or 576? And what is Block C?

384 is the filed number. 576 is the marketed one. And Block C is in no filing at all. Four surfaces say 384 units in two blocks of 192 over 21 storeys: the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure, the developer’s own APDL document, the KPKT TEDUH register (jumlahUnit: 384, two components of 192) and the developer’s own project page. Four consumer sources say 576 units in three 20-storey towers: The Edge, EdgeProp, PropertyGuru and propertysifu. So the developer’s own marketing page agrees with the filings against its own press releases. On Block C specifically: the string “Block C” appears exactly once in the filed brochure, inside a floor-plan label list — the sales particulars cover Blok A and Blok B only. There is no registered phase for it (20164-4 returns 404 and the register credits this licensee with exactly 3 projects, two of them a different scheme in Daerah Sepang), no APDL, no filed unit count, no filed price band and no filed completion date. So Block C exists in the design and not in the permit. What that means for a buyer is concrete: if it is built, it will go up on the same parcel beside Blok A and Blok B, and its construction may continue after the Blok A/B purchasers have taken vacant possession. Nothing published commits the developer either way. This is the single most material disclosure on the project after the price band, and I will put it to MYRA LAND SDN. BHD. in writing for you.

Can a foreigner buy at Myra Senja?

On the filed prices, no — and the margin is not close. Selangor applies a zoned minimum purchase price for foreign buyers. Daerah Petaling sits in Zone 1, where the minimum is RM2,000,000 per unit, and foreigners are restricted to strata title property (individual-title landed property is not permitted). That threshold is commonly traced to Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014; the summary this page relies on is a private compilation, not a gazette, so have the current circular confirmed before acting. Now the arithmetic. The highest statutory filed price anywhere on this project is RM988,200 (the Blok A maximum), and the Blok B maximum is RM938,100. Not one unit in the registered phase reaches RM2,000,000, and not one reaches even RM1,000,000. So on its own filed prices Myra Senja sits outside the reach of a foreign buyer in Selangor Zone 1. The comparison and the arithmetic are mine; the price figures are the filed statutory ones. I say this plainly because a good part of my readership buys from outside Malaysia, and it is the first thing you need to know and the last thing any brochure mentions. For completeness: on building form the units would qualify, because they are filed Schedule H strata title housing accommodation. It is the price, not the form, that fails the test. If you are overseas and want Selangor stock, the threshold is what to shop against first — message me and I will shortlist projects whose filed band actually clears it.

Has the handover date moved? Is the project late?

The date has moved by twelve months, and no, nothing is late yet. The register records the first SPA executed on 31 August 2025 with an original construction period of 36 months, which gives vacant possession of 31 August 2028. It then records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya — an approved extension of time of 12 months — amending the period to 48 months and moving vacant possession to 31 August 2029. Why that is not a delay: no CCC and no vacant possession has been filed, so there is nothing to compare; both dates are in the future (22 and 34 months out from 8 October 2026); and construction stands at 20% on both components with status Lancar (on track), while the developer’s own site-progress page reports Level 3 of 21 reached in Q3 2026, up from Level 1 in Q2 2026 and foundation works nearing completion in Q1 2026. Which published date is right? Unusually, it is the developer that is current and the filing that is stale: the filed brochure prints “Mei 2028”, while the developer’s own page prints June 2029 — close to the revised date and nowhere near the original. EdgeProp’s condo record prints “01 Jan 2029”, which matches nothing. The only two dates with statutory force are 31 August 2028 (original) and 31 August 2029 (approved revision), and the governing one is 31 August 2029. An extension of time is precisely the mechanism that shifts the date from which liquidated damages run, so a buyer who signed to the original 36-month period should take their own legal advice on whether the extension binds them. This page records the register’s entry, not its effect on an individual SPA.

It is called a serviced apartment. Does that put it outside the Housing Development Act?

No — and on this project that is the single most reassuring finding, so state it as a positive. The filed building type is Pangsapuri Servis (the brochure’s statutory line says Rumah Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan), and the fear buyers rightly have about serviced-apartment, SOHO and office-suite stock is that it sits outside the HDA: no Schedule H, no statutory liquidated damages, no housing development account. That fear is not borne out here. Four things line up: the register files the sale contract for both components as Jadual H; the project holds its own APDL (20164-3/06-2028/0447(N)-(S)); a housing development account is filed (Maybank Islamic Berhad, a/c 562861902511, opened 29 May 2025); and the licensee holds a live developer’s licence. So all 384 units are HDA-licensed Schedule H strata title housing accommodation, with statutory delivery periods and statutory liquidated damages. And there is a second positive: no source, filed or marketing, describes any office suite, SOHO, SOFO or studio-office at Myra Senja, and the register shows exactly two components, both Pangsapuri Servis. This project does not have the non-HDA office-suite problem. What is not published is the land-use category on the title, which is what drives the assessment rate, the utility tariff and the quit rent on a serviced-apartment product. Ask for it.

Are the ground-floor retail lots and the “boutique hotel” covered by the same protections?

No, and this is the real non-HDA gap here. The launch coverage publishes 74,432 sq ft of ground-floor retail, and PropertyGuru refers to “doorstep retail outlets”; the developer’s own page says only that conveniences are “a few steps away”. Neither filed component contains any retail, shop or commercial unit, and the APDL does not cover one. If those lots are sold they fall outside the HDA: no Schedule H, no statutory liquidated damages, no housing development account. And nothing at all is published about them — no count, no size, no title type and no statement of whether they are to be sold or retained. On the “boutique hotel component”: it is mentioned once, in an EdgeProp article of 25 June 2026 — and the same publisher’s launch coverage of the same project, seven months earlier, lists only the retail and no hotel. A boutique hotel is also a published component of the sibling Myra Embun @ Dengkil. It appears in no Myra Senja filing, and this page treats it as unconfirmed and probably carried across from the sibling. A buyer of a retail lot here would be buying a different legal animal from the apartments above it, and should insist on seeing which permit, if any, covers that sale.

Is Myra Senja a Rumah Selangorku or other affordable scheme? Am I eligible?

It is not Rumah Selangorku, and the honest answer on the affordable tranche is that nobody publishes the rules. The price test settles the first part on its own: the marketed affordable floor is RM270,000, and every Rumah Selangorku tier caps below that — Type A RM42,000, B RM100,000, C RM150,000 (landed RM200,000), D RM200,000 (landed RM250,000), E and E Khas RM250,000, which is the scheme’s highest ceiling. RM270,000 exceeds the whole Rumah Selangorku price table, so the marketed 556 sq ft units cannot be RSKU units. Separately, Myra Senja does not appear in the pages of Selangor’s LPHS affordable-housing register that were read — but that register’s search parameter is inert and it runs to 19 pages, so absence there is not a clean negative and the price test is what decides. What are the units then? The launch coverage calls them “Rumah Mampu Milik” — 96 units of 556 sq ft from RM270,000 — which is the generic Malay term for an affordable-housing obligation, not a named state scheme. No filing confirms a 96-unit affordable tranche, and no source names the scheme, the eligibility rules, the income ceiling, the citizenship or first-home condition or the moratorium. That is the gap, and it is stated here as a gap. Do not carry the siblings’ rules across: Myra Saujana @ Dengkil is an LPHS-registered scheme, registered under a different name (“Pangsapuri Saujana Idaman”) and a different licensee, and Myra Idaman @ Kundang is explicitly under Selangor’s Rumah Idaman programme with a published income ceiling, a first-home condition and a five-year moratorium. Myra Senja carries none of that, from any source. Nor is it published which floors the affordable units sit on, or whether they share lifts, lobbies and facilities with the open-market units. Ask me and I will put all of it to the developer in writing.

What is the price, and why does this page not print a “from RM” figure?

What this page publishes is the filed statutory price range and nothing else. Harga Jualan Minimum – Maksimum, exactly as the filed advertisement brochure and the developer’s own page footer print it: Blok A RM270,000 – RM988,200 and Blok B RM270,000 – RM938,100. The KPKT register carries the same two bands but assigns the maxima to the opposite components, so read the project band as RM270,000 – RM988,200 and attribute the per-block split to the developer’s own documents. These are project-wide filed bands, never a per-type and never a per-unit price — and note that the RM270,000 floor is the affordable tranche, not the open-market entry price. Two portals publish an open-market “from” figure and they disagree with each other; both sit well above the filed minimum, and neither is a statutory figure and neither is reproduced here, because a portal “from” cannot be tied to an SPA price. Three agent asking prices also circulate, rounded, from a single agent; they are not statutory either and are not reproduced. Louis’s standing policy on every page on this site: the only price shown is the filed statutory SPA range. Certain commercial terms are deliberately withheld and none of them is published here, ever. On this project that specifically means that a brand-partnership furnishing package, its stated ringgit value, a set of limited-period items and a rewards campaign are all withheld in full — their existence is noted and their contents are not. No Diskaun Bumiputera field exists in any filing read, so there is nothing withheld on that head; the field simply is not printed. 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.

Is the APDL valid? And why does the sales page print an expired licence?

The permit is live. The licence string on the developer’s own marketing is eleven days stale. Keep the two instruments apart, because they are routinely confused. On the APDL: the filed brochure files it as a literal XXXX placeholder with no dates, which on its own would make lapse unassessable — but the register, the developer’s own APDL PDF and its page footer all print 20164-3/06-2028/0447(N)-(S), valid 6 June 2025 to 5 June 2028. All three agree, including on the (N)-(S) suffix, which is reproduced here as printed rather than silently converted. So as at 8 October 2026 the permit is LIVE, with about 20 months to run (my arithmetic from the filed dates). Note that it expires before the governing delivery date of 31 August 2029, so a renewal will be needed to keep advertising. On the developer’s licence: the register’s live licence is 20164/09-2031/0454(R), valid 28 September 2026 to 27 September 2031 — but the filed brochure and the live sales page both still print 20164/09-2026/1211(R), which expired on 27 September 2026, and the developer’s own APDL PDF prints that same expired number with suffix (A) instead of (R). So the developer is properly licensed to 2031 while advertising behind an expired licence string, and it prints the same licence with two different suffixes across its own surfaces. Never pass licence validity off as APDL validity, or the reverse.

Is it really a low-density development? And what is the maintenance charge?

“Low density” cannot be verified, and the arithmetic does not support it. The developer’s layouts page calls this a “low-density tower” with “12 units per level”. Keluasan tanah is not printed in any filing, so density cannot be computed from a filed figure at all. The only land area in existence anywhere is a portal figure of 5.06 acres. On that denominator, 384 filed units is about 76 units per acre and 576 marketed units is about 114 units per acre — that arithmetic is mine, on a portal land figure, and it is not a filed density. Neither result is low density by any ordinary Klang Valley reading. And “12 units per level” is a floor-plate fact, not a density fact: 12 units across 21 storeys is exactly how you arrive at 192 units a block. One more reason to distrust the land figure: the sibling Myra Embun is published at 5.08 acres, two hundredths of an acre from this project’s portal figure, which is close enough to be worth doubting until a filed figure appears. On maintenance: the only rate in circulation is RM0.33 per sq ft plus a 10% sinking fund, published by one portal. No developer source and no filing publishes a maintenance rate or a sinking-fund rate, so treat that figure as indicative and unverified, and ask for the developer’s own schedule before you budget.

Does Myra Senja have any award or green certification? And is this a Gamuda project?

No award, no green rating, and definitively not Gamuda. On awards: there is no awards page on the brand’s site, the brand’s about page names no award at all, the project page names none, and no portal or press release names one. Myra Senja has no award of any kind from any source, and there is no brand-level award to be mistakenly borrowed either. Refuse any “award-winning” phrasing you see. On green certification: all four GreenRE rating registers were read as separate fetches, and there is no entry for Myra Senja in the reachable portion of the Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze registers. Three of the four tiers truncate, so that is a qualified negative and not a clean one — it is a safe source for a positive and never for a clean negative. Two traps sit in that register and both are avoided here: the Bronze row “Myra Idaman” (RES v3.3, PROVISIONAL, 11 February 2026) belongs to Myra Gardens Sdn Bhd, a different licensee, for a different project at Kundang, Rawang, in Daerah Gombak — and its energy-saving and carbon figures belong to that project, not this one; and the row “Senja by Ombak Villa Langkawi” belongs to M K Land Holdings Berhad and is unrelated to anything here. And a clean positive: the developer claims nothing. Its project page, its layouts page and the filed brochure carry no green logo, no rating and no “targeting” language — so there is no logo-without-a-rating trap on this project. GBI status is inconclusive (the GBI directory was unreachable), which is not the same as uncertified. On Gamuda: Myra is the brand of Oriental Interest Berhad, and the developer’s own footer says “The Myra brand is a product of OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd”. The KPKT developer register returns six Gamuda licensees and not one of them holds a project named Myra. Myra Senja is licensed to MYRA LAND SDN. BHD., whose registered office is OIB’s Penang office. It is not a Gamuda Land project and no source supports that it is.

Want the filed documents and the register record, rather than a summary?

I will send you the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure for phase 20164-3 (including the page where the APDL is a literal XXXX), the developer’s own APDL PDF that recovers the real permit, the lot, the pekan, the daerah, the plan approval and the housing development account, and the KPKT register record that carries the approved 12-month extension and the governing vacant possession date of 31 August 2029. And I will put every blank on this page to MYRA LAND SDN. BHD. in writing: what Block C actually is, the filed land area, the mukim, the statutory built-up schedule, what (M) means, the car-park count, the retail lots’ permit coverage, and the affordable tranche’s scheme name and eligibility rules.

WhatsApp Louis Koh Call +6010 906 6685

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 Kuala Lumpur and Selangor new launches, and I publish the filed statutory particulars and the government register record rather than the brochure copy. On Myra Senja that is worth something concrete. 384 units are filed and 576 are marketed — and Block C has no licence phase, no APDL and no filed anything, appearing exactly once in a floor-plan label list inside the filed brochure. On the filed prices, not one unit reaches the RM2,000,000 Selangor Zone 1 foreign-buyer floor, which matters more here than on most pages because a good part of my readership buys from outside Malaysia. The register is the only place that shows the approved 12-month extension moving vacant possession to 31 August 2029 — and on this project it is the filing that prints the stale date while the developer’s own page is current, which is the inverse of what I usually find. The filed brochure files the APDL as a literal XXXX, and the developer’s live sales page still prints a licence that expired on 27 September 2026 even though the register shows it renewed to 2031. Where nothing is published — the land area, the mukim, a single built-up area, a single rail distance, Block C’s status — I say so and I go and ask. And where Louis’s compliance rule bites, I withhold the figure and tell you that I am withholding it.

WhatsApp Louis

Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 · Built from the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure for phase 20164-3, the developer’s own published APDL PDF, the KPKT TEDUH project and developer registers, Selangor’s LPHS affordable-housing register, all four GreenRE rating registers, the developer’s own project, layouts, brand, corporate and site-progress pages, and named The Edge, EdgeProp, StarProperty, PropertyGuru and propertysifu sources — all read on 8 October 2026. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

Myra Senja @ Subang 2Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Selangor · 99-yr leasehold to 2118 · 384 units filed (576 marketed) · 2 blocks × 21 storeys · Jadual H · delivery 31 Aug 2029

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: Myra (5 developments on this site)

Where it is: Subang 2, Selangor

All developers covered

Build progress

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).

20164-3 · MYRA SENJA

Overall status: Lancar — on schedule

Component	Bed / bath	Built-up	Units	Price on the permit	Complete
Pangsapuri Servis 21 storeys Lancar	1, 3, 4 / 1, 2	—	192	RM270,000.00 – RM938,100.00	25.00%
Pangsapuri Servis 21 storeys Lancar	1, 3, 4 / 1, 2	—	192	RM270,000.00 – RM988,200.00	25.00%

Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.

The filed advertisement · on the ministry’s own server

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.

Open the filed advertisement (PDF)

Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 20164-3. 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.