Myra Tenuman @ TTDI Alam Impian, Seksyen 35, Shah Alam — 116 Schedule G houses, and the licensee’s name contains neither “Myra” nor “OIB”
It is not a condominium and not a strata scheme. The KPKT register files 116 landed houses on the Schedule G contract across two phases — 70 under project code 30962-1 and 46 under 30962-2 — and the licensed developer is TOTAL MAJORITY SDN. BHD. (795559-V), a 52.5%-owned subsidiary of Bursa-listed Oriental Interest Berhad. A register search for MYRA returns two licensees and neither holds this project; OIB returns six and none holds it; ORIENTAL INTEREST returns nothing. And Phase 1’s registered scheme name is literally “Alam Impian” — the township. Search the register for 30962-1 and 30962-2, not for the name.
Replies personally, usually within the hour · Louis Koh, Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd, Registered Estate Agency
q=EXSIM returns 16 licensees, so the register endpoint works
Myra Tenuman @ TTDI Alam Impian, Seksyen 35, Shah Alam at a glance
Every figure in this block is a filed statutory particular, a KPKT register field, or a figure attributed to the named source that published it. Where the sources disagree, both values are shown and the page says which one governs. Where nothing is published, the entry says so.
- Registered scheme names
- “Alam Impian” (30962-1) · “Myra Tenuman” (30962-2)two registered names for one marketed development, in the same register, under the same licensee. Print and search the codes, not the name
- Licensed developer
- Total Majority Sdn. Bhd. (795559-V)KPKT developer code 30962, status Aktif, two projects, no offence flag · 52.5% held by Oriental Interest Berhad (Bursa: OIB, 5827) per a Bursa filing of 21 December 2023 · brand licensed from OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd (200901008425 / 851411-M) · land owned by TTDI Land Sdn Bhd · the remaining 47.5% is disclosed nowhere
- Built form
- 116 two-storey housesPhase 1: 54 Rumah Berkembar (semi-detached) + 16 Rumah Sesebuah (bungalow). Phase 2: 46 Rumah Sesebuah (bungalow, Type V1 32 + Type V2 14). No condominium, no serviced apartment and no commercial component is filed in either phase
- Contract schedule
- Jadual G (Schedule G), both phasesregister field
pjb.jenis, corroborated by the APDL tail-(L)for landed. It is printed in neither filed brochure, not on the developer’s own page and not on any portal — the government register is the only source for it - Filed Unit Selling Price
- semi-detached RM2,015,800 – RM2,688,800
Phase 1 bungalow RM3,056,900 – RM3,552,700
Phase 2 bungalow RM3,095,000 – RM4,449,000the statutory advertisement minimum and maximum per house type, as the filed KPKT HIMS brochures, the developer’s own panel and the KPKT TEDUH registry band all print them — identical to the sen on all three components. Not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer - Filed built-up area
- 314 m² semi-detached · 350–370 m² bungalowregister
komponen.luas— the only filed built-up figures that exist for this project. Our conversions: about 3,380 sq ft and 3,767–3,983 sq ft. No filed brochure carries a built-up schedule at all - Lot size
- semi-detached 4,166–7,535 sq ft · Phase 1 bungalow 6,652–8,826 sq ft · Phase 2 bungalow up to 11,000 sq ftpress figures (The Edge, StarProperty, EdgeProp, siakapkeli), not filed by anyone. mybina labels the same range as a built-up area, which it is not
- Bedrooms / bathrooms
- semi-detached 5 / 5 · Phase 1 bungalow 6 / 7 · Phase 2 bungalow 5–6 / 6–7register
bilikTidur/bilikMandi. EdgeProp gives the Phase 1 bungalow as 5 bed and 6 bath — the register’s figures are the ones published here - Land tenure
- Freehold (Kekal)Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada on all three filed brochures and the developer’s panel. Four publishers add “with individual titles” — which is the sentence the foreign-buyer question turns on
- Delivery period
- 24 Bulan from each purchaser’s own SPA
tempohAsal: 24 Bulanon both phases, andpindaanTempohSerahKosong: “Tidak”on both — no approved extension of time is on file, withtempohTambahanDiluluskan,tempohPembinaanBaharuandserahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertamaall“-” - Vacant possession per SPA
- 30 September 2027 (Phase 1) · 5 February 2028 (Phase 2)register
serahKosongIkutPjb— first SPA 30 September 2025 and 5 February 2026, each plus 24 months. These are the dates that govern, and each later purchaser’s own 24 months runs from their own SPA - Construction progress
- 25.56% and 20.00% (Phase 1) · 19.67% (Phase 2)KPKT register, read 9 October 2026. mybina put Phase 1 at piling and foundation works at 20 May 2026, which is consistent. No CCC and no vacant possession is filed on any component
- Approving authority
- Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA)building-plan references MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/375 (Phase 1) and MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/374 (Phase 2) — consecutive numbers in MBSA’s own file series, and the proof of location, because MBSA’s jurisdiction is the City of Shah Alam only. Three of the four statutory surfaces misspell it “Maljis Bandaraya Shah Alam”
- District (daerah)
- NOT FILED —
daerah: “-”on both recordsweight of evidence: Daerah Klang. The Bursa filing describes the land as “in Klang”, and all four neighbouring Setia Alam Impian register records in the same Seksyen 35 print Klang. Presented as weight of evidence, never as a filed fact for this project - Density
- Cannot be computed, and this page publishes noneno filing states a land area, and the register’s
keluasanon this project is a built-up in square metres, not a land area — reading it as land would understate a bungalow lot by roughly twenty times. The 54, 54.55 and 70-acre figures in circulation all cover the unbuilt mixed-use phases as well - Green certification and awards
- None — and the developer claims neitherno GreenRE entry at all in the Platinum register, which was read in full, and no entry in the reachable portion of Gold, Silver or Bronze; GBI’s directory returned an error, so that read is inconclusive and not a negative.
myra.com.myhas no awards page, and “Green Village” is a design concept, not a rating
Explore related topics
The statutory terms this page leans on, the Selangor and Shah Alam archives, and the other Shah Alam and Myra project pages Louis keeps alongside this one.
Ten things about Myra Tenuman that no brochure and no portal will tell you
This page exists for the awkward facts. Every card is sourced to a named published document, and every one changes what a buyer should ask at the sales gallery.
The licensee’s name contains neither “Myra”, “OIB” nor “Oriental”
The developer that will sign the SPA is TOTAL MAJORITY SDN. BHD. (795559-V), KPKT developer code 30962. Searching the public register for MYRA returns two licensees (Myra Gardens, Myra Land) and neither holds this project; OIB returns six OIB Properties vehicles and none holds it; ORIENTAL INTEREST returns zero. The positive control EXSIM returns 16, so the endpoint is working and these are real misses. The route in was the developer’s own statutory panel, which prints licence 30962/02-2030/0018. Myra is Oriental Interest Berhad, not Gamuda Land — confirmed five ways, and the only “Gamuda” string anywhere near this project is Gamuda Walk, a mall the developer lists as an amenity 14 km away.
Phase 1 is registered under the township name, so a search for “Myra Tenuman” misses 70 of the 116 houses
30962-1 carries projek.nama: “Alam Impian” — the township sitting in the project-name field — while 30962-2 carries “Myra Tenuman”. One marketed development, two registered names. A client who runs a TEDUH check on the marketing name finds the 46-bungalow phase and will not find the 70-unit Halaman 1 phase at all. This is, practically, the most useful sentence on the page: search 30962-1 and 30962-2.
Landed and Schedule G — and that changes six things that cost money
The register files pjb.jenis: Jadual G on both phases, the schedule for a house sold together with its land, and the APDL tail is -(L) for landed. That means a 24-month delivery clock rather than 36, a payment ladder tied to the house and its own infrastructure, no management corporation, no service charge and no sinking fund by default, different defect liability period mechanics, and a different foreign-ownership answer. The schedule is printed nowhere a buyer would look — not in either filed brochure, not on the developer’s page, not on any portal. The comparison table is below.
The licence covers 116 houses. The marketing sells a 70-acre, RM1-billion township
The serial walk is complete and it agrees with itself: 30962-1 = 70 units, 30962-2 = 46, 30962-3 and -4 are 404, and the licensee’s own jumlahProjek is exactly 2 — so there is no dormant twin and no hidden phase here, which is worth saying because the neighbouring scheme in the same township does carry one. 116 is 116. But the filed minima of all 116 units sum to RM300,133,600 against a published township GDV of RM1 billion — about 30% of the claimed GDV is licensed and about 70% is not filed with anyone, because Halaman 3 and 4, the high-rise and the commercial have no licence at all. The Bursa filing puts whole-joint-development completion at 2034: construction beside these houses for roughly seven years after their vacant possession.
Five naming systems for one release, and ten completion dates across the two phases
The Phase 2 filed brochure is headed Fasa 3B — the landowner’s phasing — while the developer’s masterplan legend calls the same release Halaman 2 and, on the same page, the residences section calls it Phase 2; the press calls Phase 1 the Halaman collection; the register calls them 30962-1 and 30962-2. And Phase 2’s own filed Tarikh Dijangka Siap is Oktober 2027 — four months earlier than the developer’s own page (“Feb 2028”) and than the register (05 Feb 2028). Phase 1 has six dates across five sources. The timeline below marks the two that govern.
The developer’s own page states a licence expiry two and a half years too early
On both statutory entries the developer’s panel prints the APDL validity in the licence-validity field: Tempoh Sah laku lesen 19/08/2025–18/08/2027 for Phase 1 and 02/12/2025–01/12/2027 for Phase 2 — and then describes the permit period separately and uselessly as “2 Tahun”. A client reading the sales page would conclude the licence expires in 2027. It does not: licence 30962/02-2030/0018 runs to 05/02/2030. The same family of error puts (N) on all four developer and filed surfaces against the register’s (A).
Two filed generations of Phase 1 exist — and the newer one says 11 units remain
Both HIMS path forms exist under serial 30962 and they hold two different generations of the same phase. Between them: the APDL goes from blank to filled; the chargee goes from TIADA to CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad, i.e. on the face of the two documents the land went from unencumbered to charged; the completion date gains a day (“September 2027” to “15 September 2027”); and the newer filing adds Baki Unit 6 + 5 = 11 units remaining — which is flatly inconsistent with The Edge’s September 2025 report of a 100% take-up rate on Phase 1. The fixture schedules were compared across both generations and Sinki Dapur & Paip is present in both with no difference, so the filing does support the kitchen specification.
Foreign buyers: the price clears by 0.78%, and the title is the real question
Selangor Zone 1’s floor is RM2,000,000 and the semi-detached minimum is RM2,015,800 — clearing it by RM15,800, which is 0.78%, for 54 of the 116 houses. Every filed price point on every type clears. But the binding question is title, not price: four publishers state “freehold with individual titles”, the filing is Schedule G, and two sources say Zone 1 permits foreigners strata and landed-strata title only. IQI’s own land guide carries the restriction. There is a whole FAQ on this below — read it before you rely on the price test.
Nobody publishes a single transport distance — not one
The developer publishes 34 kilometre figures across medical, leisure, education and shopping, and no transport category at all. No source anywhere publishes a rail station, a highway, an interchange or a drive time for this project. LRT 3 runs through the Klang–Shah Alam corridor, but no source connects a station to this site, so this page names none. EdgeProp writes “within reach” for three malls the developer’s own table puts at 13, 15 and 20 km. The developer’s kilometres are published below; the portal’s adverbs are not.
A fence now, a guardhouse later, and residents paying for security themselves
The developer’s own published arrangement, reported in identical terms by three publishers: it will build a perimeter fence; a guardhouse will be built later and only with homebuyers’ signed consent; after the CCC it will help residents apply for guarded-neighbourhood status; and residents will arrange and pay the security fee themselves through an association they form. So there is no developer-provided 24-hour security, no guardhouse committed at vacant possession, and no gazetted guarded-neighbourhood status — which refutes EdgeProp’s “24-hour Security” facility tag, and may also defeat the gated-or-guarded condition one foreign-ownership source attaches to landed strata. On a Schedule G scheme there is no management corporation to levy a charge either.
Project DNA — what the register and the three filed brochures actually say
Four statutory surfaces were read for this page: the KPKT TEDUH register records 30962-1 and 30962-2, two different filed generations of the Phase 1 HIMS advertisement brochure, the filed Phase 2 brochure, and the developer’s own statutory panel. They do not agree on eighteen fields. Where they differ, both values appear.
Facilities, strictly by the source that published them
No filing names a single facility. All three filed brochures and both register records are silent on facilities, so everything below is marketing or press and is attributed to the one source that published it. This is a landed scheme with one shared park — there are no levels and no zones to assign, and no size is published for the park or for its lake.
Central Lake Park — Wellness Zone
- Therapeutic Garden
- Healing Garden
- Yoga Lawn
- Forest Grove
Central Lake Park — Energy Zone
- Play Element
- Multipurpose Court
- Playground
- Outdoor Fitness Yard
Central Lake Park — Leisure Zone
- Picnic Lawn
- Feature Seating
- Gazebo
- Grand Staircase
- Wheelchair Ramp
- Lily Pond
Added by the press only
- Basketball court (The Edge only)
- Jogging track (The Edge only)
- A “curated village hub” (four press surfaces; no filed commercial component exists)
- Green corridors, pocket parks and public realms (four press surfaces)
Added by a portal only — and one is refuted
- Park and garden (EdgeProp — a restatement of the Central Lake Park)
- Car park (EdgeProp — meaningless as a common facility on a landed scheme, and no bay count is filed or published by anyone)
- “24-hour Security” (EdgeProp only — directly contradicted by the developer’s own published arrangement: a fence now, a guardhouse later only on buyers’ signed consent, guarded-neighbourhood status only applied for after CCC, and residents funding the security themselves through an association they form)
Marked “COMING SOON” by the developer — and unlicensed
- HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL — no licence, no APDL, no filed unit count, no filed price, no filed date
- COMMERCIAL — same; and when commercial lots are sold they will almost certainly sit outside the HDA 1966, with no Schedule G or H, no statutory liquidated damages and no housing development account
- Halaman 3 and 4 — “Future Development, Mixed Development” — the Bursa filing puts completion of the whole joint development at 2034
Every date in circulation, with its source, and the two that govern
tarikhPjbPertama) — the clock that matters starts here/project/ completion field — matches nothing filed anywhereThe three filed house types — and why there is no plan on this page
The register files one built-up figure per component, not per type code, and no filed brochure carries a built-up schedule at all. Everything labelled filed below is a government register field; everything labelled press is attributed to the publishers who printed it and is filed by nobody.
Not in either filed KPKT HIMS brochure, not on the developer’s own page, not on any portal. No render of a house exterior or interior with a published subject exists on the developer’s host either. This page says so rather than borrowing a sibling Myra project’s render.
Rumah Berkembar — semi-detached, Phase 1
The largest single block of houses on the project and the only type under RM3 million. These 54 units are also the ones sitting 0.78% above Selangor’s foreign-buyer floor. The codes S1 and S2 exist only as column headers in the filed finishes table — the filing never maps either code to a unit count, and the plan heading is a bare RUMAH BERKEMBAR with no code at all. The press prints “up to 3,376 sq ft” for the built-up, which is 4 sq ft below the filed figure converted — trivial in size, but it shows the press is not quoting the filing. mybina labels the lot range above as a built-up area; it is not, and the filed built-up is less than half mybina’s lower figure.
Not in either filed KPKT HIMS brochure, not on the developer’s own page, not on any portal. No render of a house exterior or interior with a published subject exists on the developer’s host either. This page says so rather than borrowing a sibling Myra project’s render.
Rumah Sesebuah — bungalow, Phase 1
The older filed brochure calls these Rumah Banglo, the newer one Rumah sesebuah 2 tingkat, and the register Rumah Sesebuah — three Malay terms for the same 16 houses, which matters only because a keyword search on one term misses the others. EdgeProp gives 5 bed and 6 bath for this type; the register says 6 and 7, and the register is what this page publishes. The press prints “up to 3,982 sq ft”, which agrees with the filed ceiling to within a square foot, but publishes no lower bound at all — so the filed 3,767 sq ft floor appears nowhere in the marketing.
Not in either filed KPKT HIMS brochure, not on the developer’s own page, not on any portal. No render of a house exterior or interior with a published subject exists on the developer’s host either. This page says so rather than borrowing a sibling Myra project’s render.
Rumah Sesebuah — bungalow, Phase 2 (filed as Fasa 3B)
This is the only one of the three types whose per-code unit split is filed: V1 32 units, V2 14. It is also the release with five names — the filed brochure heads it Fasa 3B, the developer’s masterplan legend calls it Halaman 2, the residences section of the same page calls it Phase 2, the register calls it 30962-2. Its Peratusan Unit Bumiputera field exists in the filed brochure; this page does not publish the value. No Diskaun Bumiputera field appears in any of the three filed brochures — checked explicitly on all three, and worth saying.
These are the two most common ways this project’s published numbers get misread. They are on the page because a plan is not.
Two traps in the type codes — read this before comparing anything
First: V1 and V2 denote different houses in Phase 1 and in Phase 2. Phase 1’s V1 and V2 are the 16 bungalows at RM3,056,900–RM3,552,700; Phase 2’s V1 and V2 are the 46 bungalows at RM3,095,000–RM4,449,000 on larger plots. Same two codes, different registered schemes, different APDLs, different prices, different plan references. Never merge a Phase 1 V1 with a Phase 2 V1.
Second: four bare numbers appear on the Phase 2 floor plans — 12000, 15210, 15475 and 16150 — and they are not areas. They carry no unit and no label, they sit on dimension lines, and they are almost certainly millimetres (12.0 m, 15.21 m, 15.475 m, 16.15 m) — our reading. The filed built-up for this type is 350–370 m².
Filed prices are the statutory advertisement minimum and maximum per house type, which the filed KPKT HIMS brochures, the developer’s own statutory panel and the KPKT TEDUH registry band all print identically to the sen on all three components. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The real price for a particular house comes from the developer’s price list and the signed sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery — ask Louis for both. Square-foot conversions of the filed square-metre figures are ours and are labelled as such.
Gallery — five developer files, and four of them assert no subject at all
wp-json returns an error brand-wide — so nothing in this set can be graded better than caption-published, and these four cannot be graded at all beyond belonging to this project.
There is no floor plan, no unit plan and no interior or exterior house render with a published subject anywhere on the developer’s host. Six files there carry a published subject and six more belong to the project but describe only the page section they sit behind. The six with subjects are the lake render, two masterplan renderings, the Central Lake Park plan in two crops, and the amenities map. Nothing from a sibling Myra project has been borrowed, and no stock photograph has been substituted.
Ask Louis for the current e-brochure and show-unit photographsLocation — Seksyen 35, TTDI Alam Impian, Shah Alam
The filings locate this project by three things: the sales-gallery address printed on all three filed brochures, the MBSA building-plan references MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/375 and MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/374, and two sets of register coordinates. The district field is blank on both register records, and no lot number and no mukim is published by any source.
The Phase 2 filed brochure prints the sales-gallery address with Seksyen misspelt as “Skesyen 35”, and three of the four statutory surfaces misspell the local authority as “Maljis Bandaraya Shah Alam”. The developer’s own page also carries meta keywords including “Property in Kuala Lumpur” for a project whose approving authority is MBSA — MBSA has no Kuala Lumpur jurisdiction; ignore it. Alam Impian is not one developer’s township: it carries at least Setia Alam Impian (I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd, licence 9829) and TTDI Alam Impian (Naza TTDI / TTDI Land / Triterra, licence 30962). Keep their figures, parks and awards strictly apart — there is a separate page on this site for the Setia side.
Transport — what nobody publishes
- No source publishes a single rail, highway, interchange or drive-time figure for this project.
- The developer’s own amenity table has four categories — medical, leisure, education and shopping — and no transport category at all.
- Nearest station of any line: not published. LRT 3 runs through the Klang–Shah Alam corridor, but no source connects a station to this site, so this page names none and estimates none.
- KESAS, the Shah Alam Expressway, the Federal Highway, the LKSA, any interchange: no distance published.
- KLIA, Subang airport, Shah Alam city centre, Klang town centre: no distance and no drive time published.
- EdgeProp writes “within minutes” and “within reach” instead of figures, for three malls the developer’s own table puts at 13, 15 and 20 km. Published here: the developer’s kilometres. Not published here: the portal’s adverbs.
Medical — developer’s own table
- Sentosa Specialist Hospital Klang — 6 km
- Columbia Asia Extended Care Hospital — 8 km
- Avisena Specialist Hospital — 9 km
- Columbia Asia Hospital Bukit Rimau — 10 km
- Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Klang — 11 km
- Hospital Shah Alam — 12 km
Education — developer’s own table
- SMJK Chung Hwa Klang — 4 km
- Eaton International School @ Setia Alam — 4 km
- SJK(C) Khe Beng — 6 km
- UiTM Shah Alam — 7 km
- Sri KDU International School — 10 km
- INTI International University & Colleges — 12 km
- Sunway University — 16 km
- Monash University Malaysia — 18 km
- Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus — 20 km
Shopping — developer’s own table
- Econsave Kampung Jawa — 4 km
- Ole Ole Shopping Centre — 6 km
- NSK Trade City — 6 km
- AEON BIG Seksyen 23 — 6 km
- Uptown Shah Alam — 8 km
- AEON Seksyen 18 — 9 km
- Giant Shah Alam — 10 km
- Mydin — 12 km
- Central i-City — 13 km
- Gamuda Walk — 14 km (a mall in Kota Kemuning. This is the only “Gamuda” string anywhere near this project and it is an amenity, not a developer relationship)
- Setia City Mall — 15 km
- Da Men Mall — 16 km
- IOI Mall — 18 km
- Sunway Pyramid — 20 km
Leisure — developer’s own table
- Taman Tasik Alam Impian — 3 km — this is the township lake park, three kilometres away. It is not the project’s own Central Lake Park, and Wikipedia’s 31-acre central town park belongs to the township masterplan, not to Myra Tenuman
- Kota Permai Golf & Country Club — 9 km
- Panasonic Sports Complex Shah Alam — 9 km
- Bukit Kemuning Golf & Country Resort — 10 km
- National Botanic Gardens (Taman Botani Negara) — 13 km
All 34 distances above are published by the developer’s own project page and are labelled by it as approximate distance, rounded to whole kilometres. No filing publishes any distance. Nothing here is estimated, converted, or taken from a sibling Myra project page, and no figure printed on the amenities map image has been used. Both Selangor state property registries were inert when queried for this project: ehartanah.lphs.gov.my carries the search term into its own pagination links and still returns the default unfiltered listing, and kuotalphs.selangor.gov.my returned a server error. An inert registry is never a negative — and in any case both cover affordable schemes only, which this is emphatically not.
The filed statutory particulars — KPKT projects 30962-1 (“Alam Impian”) and 30962-2 (“Myra Tenuman”)
Read from the KPKT TEDUH public register and the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochures on 9 October 2026, and cross-read against the developer’s own statutory panel. Nothing on this project is filed as a placeholder or a bare dash, and nothing has lapsed — lapse against today is assessable on both phases, which is a clean positive worth stating.
| Project code | Registered name | Licensed developer | Developer licence | APDL | Permit validity | Approving authority | Building plan ref | Units | Contract schedule | Delivery period | Filed Unit Selling Price | Land tenure | Chargee | Construction progress | Filed CCC / VP | Vacant possession per SPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30962-1 30962-2 30962-3 and 30962-4 are 404, and the licensee’s jumlahProjek is exactly 2 — they agree, so there is no dormant twin and no hidden phase here | Ph 1 “Alam Impian” — the township name, in the project-name field Ph 2 “Myra Tenuman”Two registered names for one marketed development. The filed Phase 2 brochure is headed Fasa 3B; the developer markets the same release as Halaman 2 and, on the same page, as Phase 2. Five naming systems. Search the code. | Total Majority Sdn. Bhd. 795559-V developer code 30962, statusPemaju: Aktif, mempunyaiKesalahan: null, 2 projects, 0 sakit, 0 terbengkalai · 52.5% held by Oriental Interest Berhad (Bursa: OIB, 5827); the remaining 47.5% is disclosed nowhere. Only the old-format registration number is published anywhere | 30962/02-2030/0018(A) 06/02/2025 – 05/02/2030, per the register. CURRENT. All three filed brochures and the developer’s own page print the same number with suffix (N); the register’s (A) is published here. And the developer’s panel prints the permit dates in this field on both entries, implying a 2027 expiry | Ph 1 30962-1/08-2027/0685(A)-(L) Ph 2 30962-2/12-2027/1004(N)-(L)the tail -(L) means landed, corroborating Jadual G independently. Phase 1 has an (N) twin on identical dates, marked Tidak Aktif, which the developer and the filing both publish. Phase 2’s register field is itself (N) with an empty lesen_records array — so the two phases are published exactly as the register prints them, and they differ. Phase 1’s permit is blank in the older filed brochure and filled in the newer; Phase 2’s is blank in the only filing that exists | Ph 1 19/08/2025 – 18/08/2027 Ph 2 02/12/2025 – 01/12/2027both CURRENT as at 9 October 2026 — about 10 months and about 14 months to run (our arithmetic) | Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam MBSA. Three of the four statutory surfaces print it as “Maljis Bandaraya Shah Alam”; only the newer Phase 1 filing spells it correctly. The same typo appears on a sibling Myra filing, so it is a brand-level template error | Ph 1 MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/375 Ph 2 MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/374consecutive references in MBSA’s own building-plan file series, identical on the filed brochures and on the developer’s panel. This is the location proof — MBSA’s jurisdiction is the City of Shah Alam only | Ph 1 70 — 54 Rumah Berkembar + 16 Rumah Sesebuah Ph 2 46 — Rumah Sesebuah, Type V1 32 + Type V2 14116 in all, and no filing covers one unit more. Both phases two storeys ( tingkat: 2 on all three components). No commercial, retail, shop, high-rise or serviced-apartment component is filed in either phase. The newer Phase 1 filing adds Baki Unit 6 + 5 = 11 remaining | Jadual G on both phases register field pjb.jenis: the Schedule G form, for a house sold together with its land. Neither filed brochure, nor the developer’s panel, nor any portal or press report states the schedule anywhere — the register is the only source for it. The plain-language comparison with Schedule H is below | 24 Bulan on both phasespindaanTempohSerahKosong: “Tidak” on both — no approved extension of time, with tempohTambahanDiluluskan, tempohPembinaanBaharu and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama all “-”. Reported as the values this project files, and nothing more — this page presents no rule linking the schedule to the extension field | semi-detached RM2,015,800 – RM2,688,800 (54) Ph 1 bungalow RM3,056,900 – RM3,552,700 (16) Ph 2 bungalow RM3,095,000 – RM4,449,000 (46) the statutory advertisement minimum and maximum per house type. Three surfaces, three components, nine figures, zero disagreement — the filed brochure, the developer’s own panel and the KPKT TEDUH registry band are identical to the sen. That is the cleanest price result this site has recorded, and the developer deserves the credit for it. Not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer | Freehold (Kekal) Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada on all three filed brochures and the developer’s panel. Four publishers add “freehold with individual titles”; no filing states the title type and no filing mentions strata at all | Ph 1 TIADA (older filing) vs CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad (newer filing and the developer’s panel)Ph 2 CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad (filed brochure) vs CIMB Bank Berhad (the developer’s panel)On the face of the two Phase 1 documents the land went from unencumbered to charged. On Phase 2 the two surfaces name two different legal entities — one the Islamic bank, one the conventional bank. Both are stated; neither is resolved. The register carries no chargee field | Ph 1 25.56% (Rumah Berkembar) · 20.00% (Rumah Sesebuah) Ph 2 19.67%register, read 9 October 2026, status Lancar on both. mybina put Phase 1 at piling and foundation works with substructure underway at 20 May 2026, which is consistent. Both statutory dates are in the future and nothing here is called late | “-” / “-” on all three components neither a certificate of completion and compliance nor a vacant possession date is on file for any component of either phase | Ph 1 30 September 2027 Ph 2 5 February 2028register serahKosongIkutPjb — first SPA 30 Sep 2025 and 5 Feb 2026, each + 24 months, and the arithmetic is internally consistent on both. These are the dates that govern, and each only for that first purchaser — every later buyer’s own 24 months runs from their own SPA |
Read 9 October 2026. The developer’s own published completion dates track the register on both phases — its panel prints “September 2027” and “Feb 2028” against the register’s 30 Sep 2027 and 05 Feb 2028 — and that is worth crediting. The one exception is Phase 2’s own filed brochure, whose Tarikh Dijangka Siap reads Oktober 2027, four months earlier than both. Dates in circulation that this page does not treat as the completion date: June 2027 (The Edge, EdgeProp and mybina; mybina calls it a target, which reads as a contractor-programme date), 01 September 2027 (an EdgeProp field matching nothing filed), and the bare 2027 and 2028 on EdgeProp’s new-launch pages, one of which prints 2028 in its data block and 2027 in its own About text.
Sources for this table: KPKT TEDUH api/projek-swasta/30962-1 and /30962-2; the licensee record via api/developer-swasta?q=TOTAL MAJORITY; the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochures at files/30962/30962-1/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf (older generation), files/30962/P45/P45-20260710-00019856/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf (newer generation) and files/30962/30962-2/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf; and the developer’s own two statutory entries on myra.com.my. Verify at teduh.kpkt.gov.my under 30962-1 and 30962-2 before you rely on anything here. No filed newspaper advertisement is reachable for this project — IKLAN_AKHBAR_01.pdf returns 404 on both path forms and both phases, as does IKLAN_BROSUR_02.pdf, and the developer publishes no APDL page of its own.
Foreign buyers — all 116 clear the price floor, the semi-detached by 0.78%, and the title is the binding question
Selangor’s minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer in Zone 1 — which includes both Klang and Petaling — is RM2,000,000. Tested per type against the filed minima, not against any marketing figure: the semi-detached minimum of RM2,015,800 clears by RM15,800, which is 0.78%; the Phase 1 bungalow minimum of RM3,056,900 clears by 1.53 times; the Phase 2 bungalow minimum of RM3,095,000 by 1.55 times. Every filed price point on every type clears — but 54 of the 116 houses sit less than one per cent above the line, so a single unit priced one notch lower, or a floor revision of any size, would put them below it. Test it per type, never as one yes-or-no.
And the binding constraint is title, not price. Four publishers state the houses are “freehold with individual titles”, the filing is Schedule G — the schedule for a house sold together with its land — and two independent sources state that Selangor Zone 1 permits foreign buyers strata and landed-strata title only: propcashflow.my, citing Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014 and stating in terms that “standard individual-title landed is not permitted”, and iproperty.com.my, whose Zone 1 note reads “Strata landed allowed. Individual landings were not allowed” (sic). IQI’s own land guide at iqiglobal.com/blog/buying-land-in-malaysia-for-foreigners/ carries the restriction too.
Three cautions, all of which cut against relying on any of this. First, propcashflow.my contradicts itself across two of its own pages. Second, PTG Selangor publishes no reachable circular, so the threshold and the restriction are the published consensus of independent sources and never a filed fact. Third, propcashflow.my conditions the landed-strata permission on the property being gated or guarded — and the developer’s own published security arrangement is a fence now, a guardhouse later only on buyers’ signed consent, and guarded-neighbourhood status only applied for after the CCC, funded by residents. So at vacant possession this will be neither a strata scheme nor yet a gazetted guarded neighbourhood.
State Authority consent is required in every case, and meeting the price threshold does not guarantee approval. A foreign buyer must confirm the title type with the developer and the eligibility with PTG Selangor before proceeding. This page promises a foreign buyer nothing. For comparison: Selangor Zone 2 (Kuala Selangor, Kuala Langat) is also RM2,000,000; Zone 3 (Hulu Selangor, Sabak Bernam) is RM1,000,000; Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory are RM1,000,000 with EPU consent.
Schedule G against Schedule H, in plain language — because no marketing source mentions either
The register files both phases as Jadual G and the APDL tail -(L) corroborates it. A buyer is nowhere told which statutory contract they are signing, so here is what it decides.
What is sold. Schedule G sells a house together with its own land, on an individual title. Schedule H sells a parcel in a subdivided building, on a strata title. This is Schedule G.
The delivery clock. Schedule G is 24 months from the purchaser’s own SPA date; Schedule H is 36. This project’s filed tempohAsal is exactly 24 Bulan on both phases, and with no approved extension on file the statutory liquidated-damages mechanic runs against that date.
The payment ladder. Schedule G ties progress payments to stages of the house and its own infrastructure; Schedule H to stages of the whole building.
defect liability period. 24 months from vacant possession under both schedules.
Common property and management — the one that costs money here. Under Schedule H a management corporation, a maintenance charge and a sinking fund arise by statute. Under Schedule G, none of them does. On this project the developer’s own published arrangement is that residents form an association and fund their own security — and there is no statutory mechanism to levy a charge to do it.
Foreign ownership. Selangor’s published zone rules reportedly permit strata and landed strata; Schedule G with an individual title is the category the sources say is not permitted. See the FAQ above.
A buyer told only “freehold landed bungalow” will not know that the 24-month clock, the absence of any management corporation and the foreign-ownership restriction all follow from the schedule. That is why it is on this page.
Is it HDA-protected? Yes for the 116 houses — and nothing beyond them is inside the Act yet
The 116 filed houses are protected. Both registered phases carry pjb.jenis: Jadual G, both hold their own APDL, both sit under a live developer’s licence, and both filed advertisements carry the endorsement “IKLAN INI TELAH DILULUSKAN OLEH JABATAN PERUMAHAN NEGARA” and the TEDUH verification line. There is no office-suite, SOFO, SOHO or studio component anywhere in this project, so the usual non-HDA problem does not arise.
The housing development account is not published. No filing, panel or register field names an HDA bank or account number, and this developer publishes no APDL page of its own. Ask for it, and ask that every progress payment goes into it.
Everything beyond the 116 houses is outside the Act so far. The future commercial lots, when sold, will almost certainly carry no Schedule G or H, no statutory liquidated damages and no housing development account. The future high-rise, if registered, would be a separate phase under a separate APDL and almost certainly a Schedule H contract. Nothing about either may be stated, and nothing about either is stated here.
Density — why this page publishes none, and why that is the honest answer
Density cannot be computed for this project, and the reason is worth understanding, because the obvious shortcut is catastrophically wrong.
The register’s keluasan field on this project is a BUILT-UP AREA in square metres, not a land area. It prints 314–370 on Phase 1 and 350–370 on Phase 2, and those are the komponen.luas building floor areas — about 3,380 and about 3,767–3,983 sq ft on our conversion. Read as a land area, 314 m² would understate a bungalow lot by roughly twenty times.
No filing on this project states a land area at all. The three acreages in circulation — 54 acres (the developer’s own page), 54.55 acres (the Bursa filing, for the entire joint-development land) and 70 acres (four press surfaces) — all cover the unbuilt mixed-use phases, the unlicensed high-rise and the unlicensed commercial as well, which between them account for about 70% of the claimed GDV. Dividing 116 houses by any of them produces a number that means nothing. And the developer is the lowest figure in circulation, while the Bursa filing and the press differ by 15.45 acres that no source explains.
The Edge additionally attributes the 54.55 acres to Phase 1 alone, and arithmetic on its own published lot ranges refutes that: 54 semi-detached lots of 4,166–7,535 sq ft plus 16 bungalow lots of 6,652–8,826 sq ft comes to roughly 10 acres of saleable lots at mid-range (ours). Seventy houses do not sit on 54.55 acres.
What can be published honestly is the lot size per house, and it is in the type block above, labelled as a press figure. That is the figure that actually tells a buyer about space, and it requires no density claim. Finally: Wikipedia’s 31-acre central town park belongs to the Alam Impian township, not to this project, and the developer’s own table puts Taman Tasik Alam Impian 3 km away. No part of it is attached to Myra Tenuman here.
What this page does not publish, and why
Louis does not publish any discount, rebate, nett price, promotional package, freebie, incentive, commission, Bumiputera discount percentage, leaseback rate or yield projection on any page of this site. That is an absolute rule and it applies whether or not such a figure exists. What it means here:
1. The filed statutory price bands ARE published above, because they are the legally filed advertisement particulars — the statutory minimum and maximum per house type — and on this project the filed brochure, the developer’s own panel and the KPKT TEDUH registry band agree to the sen on all three components. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and the real number for a particular house is in the price list and the signed sale and purchase agreement.
2. Three independent publishers round the entry prices BELOW the filed statutory minima, and those figures are withheld. The Edge Communications (whose two surfaces count once), Star Media Group and siakapkeli.my all print rounded “from” figures for the semi-detached and bungalow types that sit marginally under the filed minimum. Recorded here is only that the discrepancy exists and that it runs across three independent publishers. It is almost certainly a rounding artefact rather than a stale filing — the registry band matches the filed brochures exactly and the published Phase 1 GDV of RM165.5 million sits inside the filed band — but the rule is the rule and the numbers are not on this page.
3. There is an RHB bundled home-and-renovation loan, and it is described by structure only. The financing is sized against either the SPA price or the open market value, with a defined portion set aside for renovation; the renovation portion covers tiling, fittings, structural works, interior design and solar-panel installation; it is released progressively, in stages, over 12 months, and only after the home loan or financing has been fully disbursed; and the package also covers legal fees, valuation fees and mortgage reducing-term insurance or takaful. It is open to new and existing RHB customers. Every percentage attached to it — the financing ceiling and the renovation share — is withheld, as is the publishers’ framing of its value. The one thing a buyer should be told plainly: the renovation money arrives after the house is fully financed and is released over a year, so it is not available at the point of purchase. That is a structural fact, not a rate. The same arrangement is published as extending to two completed Myra projects elsewhere; no figure, date or price from either belongs on this page.
4. Phase 2’s filed brochure carries a Peratusan Unit Bumiputera field. The field exists; its value is not published here. It is a quota field, not a discount field — and no Diskaun Bumiputera field appears in any of the three filed brochures, which was checked explicitly on all three and is worth saying. The existence of such a field may be stated; a value never will be.
Ask Louis for anything in this section. That is what he is for.
Not published by anyone, therefore not on this page
The gaps are the useful part of this page. These are the questions a buyer will ask that no published source answers — and they are the list Louis will take to the developer for you.
Location and title. No lot or PT number, on any surface. No mukim. No daerah as a filed fact — the register’s field is blank on both records, and Klang is the weight of evidence, not a filing. No street address for the project itself — every filing prints only the sales gallery. Whether the individual titles are issued or still under a master title: nowhere, and a Schedule G buyer needs to know. Whether any unit is landed strata rather than individual title: nowhere — and that is the question the foreign-ownership rules turn on.
The filing itself. The contract schedule, anywhere a buyer would look — Jadual G exists only in the government register. The land area — not printed in any of the three filed brochures, and the register has no land-area field. A built-up schedule per type code. The car-park allocation — not filed, and not published by anyone, for either house type; the finishes list has an Anjung Kereta with no bay count. The housing development account. A filed newspaper advertisement — 404 on both path forms for both phases. The per-type unit counts in Phase 1 — the filing maps 16 and 54 to types of house, never to the codes V1, V2, S1 or S2.
Corporate. The remaining 47.5% of Total Majority Sdn Bhd — the Bursa filing gives OIB’s 52.5% and names no other shareholder. Total Majority’s new-format registration number. Registration numbers for TTDI Land Sdn Bhd, Naza TTDI Sdn Bhd or Triterra Sdn Bhd, and how the three relate to one another — no source reconciles them. The main contractor’s name and the contract sum — mybina records that a main contractor has been awarded and a project value band of more than RM100 million, with the name subscriber-locked, and no Bursa contract announcement was found. The architect of Phase 2 — Tangu Architecture is credited by the press for the Halaman homes only, and is named in no filing. The solicitors and the rest of the consultant team.
The development beyond the 116 houses. Everything about Halaman 3 and 4, the high-rise and the commercial: unit counts, types, built-ups, prices, titles, schedules, dates and HDA status. The only published figure is the Bursa filing’s completion year for the whole joint development, 2034. The size of the Central Lake Park and of its lake — nowhere. Whether the park will be handed to the local authority, to a residents’ association, or retained — nowhere, and on a Schedule G scheme with no management corporation that matters.
Delivery, security and the rest. A CCC or VP date — both “-” on all three components. When the guardhouse will be built, what it will cost, or who will run it. Any maintenance or security charge figure — and there is no statutory mechanism to levy one. Any award: there is none. Any green certification: there is none in the reachable registers and the developer claims none. The GDV of Phase 2. A PropertyGuru, iProperty, propertysifu or saratan project record: none exists — coverage is EdgeProp and The Edge (one publisher, three surfaces), StarProperty, siakapkeli.my and mybina, and nothing else. The contents of myratenuman.com.my, the second domain printed on the Phase 2 filing — it disallows robots, so it could not be read here.
The licensed developer, and the chain a client should actually be told
The company a Myra Tenuman purchaser contracts with is TOTAL MAJORITY SDN. BHD., registration 795559-V, KPKT developer code 30962. Not Myra, which is a brand; not OIB Marketing, which owns the brand; and not Oriental Interest Berhad, which is the listed parent. The register gives its status as Aktif, its project count as exactly 2, no recorded offence, and no sakit or terbengkalai project. Print the developer code and the licence number — 30962 and 30962/02-2030/0018(A) — so you can run the register check yourself.
The full chain, as a client should be told it. Oriental Interest Berhad (Bursa Malaysia: OIB, stock code 5827) holds 52.5% of Total Majority Sdn Bhd, per a Bursa filing of 21 December 2023 reported by two surfaces of one publisher. Total Majority is the licensee and the sale and purchase counterparty. The Myra brand is licensed from OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd, registration 200901008425 (851411-M), described on the brand’s own corporate page as a subsidiary of Oriental Interest Berhad. The land is owned by TTDI Land Sdn Bhd, named in the Bursa filing as entitled to a fixed payment of RM150 million — which makes this a sale of development rights, not an equity joint venture. The remaining 47.5% of Total Majority is disclosed nowhere.
Myra is Oriental Interest Berhad, not Gamuda Land, and this was confirmed five ways. The brand’s own corporate footer names OIB Marketing Sdn Bhd. The licensee’s registered office in the register is the OIB group office at Livingston Tower, Jalan Argyll, Penang — the same office used by four other OIB and Myra vehicles. Its business address in the register is the OIB Marketing office at Eve Suite @ Ara Damansara. Its register telephone is the number OIB Marketing publishes. And the Bursa filing names OIB directly. A register search for GAMUDA returns six Gamuda licensees, none of which holds any Myra scheme. The only “Gamuda” string anywhere near this project is Gamuda Walk, a mall the developer lists as an amenity 14 km away.
The landowner is named three different ways and no source reconciles them. The Bursa filing of December 2023 says TTDI Land Sdn Bhd. The 2025 press names Naza TTDI Sdn Bhd and Triterra Sdn Bhd as the landowners or partners. The sales-gallery address calls the precinct TTDI Alam Impian, while Wikipedia credits the whole township to SP Setia, launched in November 2006 under I&P Group Sdn Bhd. No registration number is published for any of the three, the split between Naza TTDI and Triterra is not published, and whether TTDI Land is one of them under another name is not published. All three names are reported here; none is resolved. Alam Impian is not one developer’s township — it carries at least Setia Alam Impian under licence 9829 and TTDI Alam Impian under licence 30962, and their figures, parks and awards do not cross.
Two things the developer gets credit for, and one it does not. First, the prices. Three statutory surfaces, three components, nine figures, and zero disagreement to the sen between the filed brochures, the developer’s own panel and the public registry band. That is the cleanest price result on this site and it is a real compliance achievement. Second, the dates. The developer’s own published completion dates track the register’s statutory calculation on both phases, which is rare. Third, what it does not get credit for: its own statutory panel prints the permit validity in the licence-validity field on both entries, so its sales page implies the licence expires in 2027 when it runs to 5 February 2030 — and its Phase 2 filed brochure’s expected completion of Oktober 2027 contradicts its own page and the register by four months.
The developer claims nothing green, and that is worth crediting too. Its corporate pages name no green certification of any kind. The project’s “Green Village” is an architectural concept inspired by kampung living — it names neither GreenRE nor GBI, carries no logo, no rating level and no “aligned with” language, and no provisional rating is dressed up as an award anywhere. Independently: all four GreenRE tiers were read separately for this project. Platinum returned zero matches and was not truncated — a clean negative. Gold, Silver and Bronze all truncate, so for those three the finding is “no entry in the reachable portion”, which is a qualified negative and never a clean one. Three keyword decoys were refused, each a different licensee: Myra Idaman (a different company, in Kundang, Rawang, Daerah Gombak), and Residensi Seri Embun and PT52005 Shop Offices (both Eastern & Oriental Express Sdn Bhd — one word away from Oriental Interest and entirely unrelated). GBI’s directory returned an error, so that read is inconclusive, never a negative.
And there is no award. myra.com.my has no awards page at all; its corporate page says only that the brand is “often recognized for our affordable and quality homes” — no award, no body, no year, no project. No award for Myra Tenuman appears in any developer page, in The Edge, StarProperty, EdgeProp, siakapkeli.my or mybina. Nothing from a sibling Myra project, nothing from Oriental Interest at corporate level, nothing from the Alam Impian township and nothing from Naza TTDI is borrowed onto this page. The group-level claims on the brand’s own about page — over 28,000 homes, 26,313 units, over RM3 billion, 9 projects and, on the same page, 12 projects — are group output across nine licensed vehicles in several states, self-contradictory on two of the four figures, and not Myra Tenuman figures.
The developer’s register record lists its e-mail as a free webmail address. It is recorded in the research file as a register fact, no conclusion is drawn from it, and Louis does not contact developers on a client’s behalf without that client’s instruction. mybina records a main contractor as awarded and a consultant team — C&S engineer, M&E engineer, landscape designer and subcontractors — with every name subscriber-locked and published nowhere else, so no contractor or consultant is named on this page.
Myra Tenuman @ TTDI Alam Impian, Shah Alam — frequently asked questions
Who is the licensed developer of Myra Tenuman, and is it Gamuda Land?
GAMUDA returns six Gamuda licensees and none holds any Myra scheme; the only “Gamuda” string anywhere near this project is Gamuda Walk, a mall the developer itself lists as an amenity 14 km away. Licence 30962/02-2030/0018(A), valid 06/02/2025 to 05/02/2030 — run the check at teduh.kpkt.gov.my yourself.Why does a KPKT register search for “Myra Tenuman” miss most of the project?
30962-1 carries projek.nama: “Alam Impian” and project 30962-2 carries “Myra Tenuman”. One marketed development, two registered names, in the same register, under the same licensee. So a client searching the register for the marketing name finds the 46-bungalow Phase 2 and does not find the 70-unit Halaman 1 phase at all. Search the codes: 30962-1 and 30962-2. Searching the brand name fails too — q=MYRA returns two licensees, q=OIB six, and q=ORIENTAL INTEREST none, and not one of them holds this project. The positive control q=EXSIM returns 16 records, so the endpoint works and those are real misses.How many houses does the licence actually cover, and what about the rest of the township?
30962-1 is 70 units (54 semi-detached + 16 bungalow) and 30962-2 is 46 bungalows. 30962-3 and 30962-4 return 404 and the licensee’s own jumlahProjek is exactly 2 — the two agree, so there is no dormant twin and no hidden phase on this project. But the marketing sells a 70-acre, RM1-billion township. The filed minima of all 116 units sum to RM300,133,600, which is about 30% of that claimed RM1 billion — because Halaman 3 and 4, the high-rise residential and the commercial component have no licence, no APDL, no filed unit count, no filed price and no filed date. The developer’s own masterplan marks them “Future Development” and “COMING SOON”, and the Bursa filing puts completion of the whole joint development at 2034 — which means construction beside these houses for roughly seven years after their vacant possession. That is the single most material disclosure on this project, and no consumer source makes it.Is this a condominium? What is Schedule G and why does it matter here?
Rumah Berkembar (semi-detached) and Rumah Sesebuah (bungalow), two storeys, and the contract schedule is Jadual G on both phases — the statutory form for a house sold together with its land. The APDL tail -(L) for landed corroborates it independently. What it decides: a 24-month delivery clock from your own SPA rather than 36; progress payments tied to the house and its own infrastructure rather than to a whole building; a 24-month defect liability period from vacant possession; no management corporation, no service charge and no sinking fund by default; and a different foreign-ownership answer. And the schedule is printed nowhere a buyer would look — not in either filed brochure, not on the developer’s page, not on any portal. The register is the only source for it. There is a full comparison in the register section above.When is vacant possession, and has an extension of time been approved?
serahKosongIkutPjb, being the first sale and purchase agreement date (30 September 2025 and 5 February 2026) plus the filed 24 Bulan. Each later purchaser’s own 24 months runs from their own SPA date, not from these. And pindaanTempohSerahKosong reads “Tidak” on both phases, with tempohTambahanDiluluskan, tempohPembinaanBaharu and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama all “-” — so no extension of time has been approved on either phase, and the statutory liquidated-damages mechanic runs against the unextended date. These are the values this project files, reported as such: this page presents no rule linking the schedule to the extension field. Phase 1 has six completion dates across five sources and Phase 2 has four, including Phase 2’s own filed brochure reading Oktober 2027 — four months earlier than the developer’s own page and than the register. The timeline above marks the two that govern and flags the ones that do not.Why does the developer’s own page suggest the licence expires in 2027?
(N) where the register prints (A); Phase 1 has an (N) twin on identical dates marked Tidak Aktif; and Phase 2’s register field is itself (N) with an empty lesen_records array, which is unusual — so this page publishes each phase exactly as the register prints it, and says why they differ.Can a foreigner buy a house at Myra Tenuman?
On price, all 116 houses clear. Selangor Zone 1 — which includes both Klang and Petaling — has a RM2,000,000 minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer. Against the filed minima: the semi-detached type clears by RM15,800, which is 0.78%; the Phase 1 bungalow by 1.53 times; the Phase 2 bungalow by 1.55 times. But 54 of the 116 houses sit less than one per cent above the line, so the test has to be run per type and re-run if the floor ever moves.
On title, the published rules point the other way. Four publishers describe these houses as “freehold with individual titles”, the filing is Schedule G (sale with the land), and two independent sources state that Selangor Zone 1 permits foreign buyers strata and landed-strata title only:
propcashflow.my, citing Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014 and saying in terms that “standard individual-title landed is not permitted”, and iproperty.com.my. IQI’s own land guide at iqiglobal.com/blog/buying-land-in-malaysia-for-foreigners/ carries the restriction as well.Three reasons to confirm rather than rely on any of it.
propcashflow.my contradicts itself across two of its own pages. PTG Selangor publishes no reachable circular, so the threshold and the restriction are the published consensus of independent sources and not a filed fact. And propcashflow.my conditions the landed-strata permission on the property being gated or guarded — which this one, on the developer’s own published arrangement, will not be at vacant possession: a fence now, a guardhouse later only on buyers’ signed consent, and guarded-neighbourhood status only applied for after the CCC. State Authority consent is required in every case and meeting the price threshold does not guarantee approval. For comparison: Selangor Zone 2 is also RM2,000,000, Zone 3 (Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam) is RM1,000,000, and Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory are RM1,000,000 with EPU consent.Is it gated and guarded? Is there 24-hour security?
What is the price, and what will you not publish?
What is withheld, and why. Three independent publishers round the entry prices below the filed statutory minima, and those figures are not on this page — recorded here is only that the discrepancy exists and that it runs across three independent publishers. It is almost certainly rounding rather than a stale filing, but Louis publishes no figure he cannot tie to a filed SPA price. There is also a standing rule about the whole category of figure Louis never publishes on any page of this site, and it is set out in full under What this page does not publish, and why in the register section above — together with the structure, and only the structure, of the RHB bundled home-and-renovation loan. For the actual number on the house you want, ask Louis for the price list and read the sale and purchase agreement.
How big are the houses and the lots?
Lot sizes are press figures, filed by nobody: semi-detached 4,166 to 7,535 sq ft, Phase 1 bungalow 6,652 to 8,826 sq ft, and Phase 2 bungalow “up to 11,000 sq ft” with no range published at all.
Two traps. mybina labels the press lot range as a built-up area — it is not, and the filed built-up is less than half mybina’s lower figure. And four bare numbers on the Phase 2 floor plans — 12000, 15210, 15475 and 16150 — are dimension lines in millimetres, not areas (our reading). No car-park bay count is filed or published by anyone for either house type; the finishes list shows an Anjung Kereta with no number.
How far is the nearest train station or highway?
Does Myra Tenuman hold a green certification or an award?
Green. All four GreenRE tiers were read separately. Platinum returned zero matches and was not truncated — a clean negative. Gold, Silver and Bronze all truncate, so for those three the finding is “no entry in the reachable portion”, which is a qualified negative, never a clean one. Three keyword decoys were refused, each a different licensee: Myra Idaman (Myra Gardens Sdn Bhd, at Kundang, Rawang, in Daerah Gombak), and Residensi Seri Embun and PT52005 Shop Offices (both Eastern & Oriental Express Sdn Bhd — one word away from Oriental Interest and entirely unrelated). GBI’s directory returned an error, so that read is inconclusive and never a negative. The developer names no certification of any kind; its “Green Village” is an architectural concept, not a rating.
Awards. There is no award for this project or for the brand.
myra.com.my has no awards page at all — its corporate page says only that the brand is “often recognized for our affordable and quality homes”, with no award, no body, no year and no project named. Nothing appears in the press or on any portal either. Nothing is borrowed from a sibling Myra project, from Oriental Interest at corporate level, from the Alam Impian township or from Naza TTDI. In context it is unsurprising: Phase 1 launched in May 2025 and is about a quarter built.What is the density?
keluasan field on this project is a built-up area in square metres, not a land area — it echoes komponen.luas, printing 314 to 370 and 350 to 370, which are building floor areas. Read as a land area, 314 m² would understate a bungalow lot by roughly twenty times. No filing on this project states a land area at all. The three acreages in circulation — 54 acres (the developer), 54.55 acres (the Bursa filing, for the entire joint-development land) and 70 acres (four press surfaces) — all include the unbuilt mixed-use phases and the unlicensed high-rise and commercial, which together account for about 70% of the claimed GDV, so dividing 116 houses by any of them is meaningless. The Edge also attributes the 54.55 acres to Phase 1 alone, and arithmetic on its own published lot ranges refutes it: 54 semi-detached lots plus 16 bungalow lots comes to roughly 10 acres of saleable lots at mid-range (ours) — seventy houses do not sit on 54.55 acres. What is publishable, and is above, is the lot size per house. That is the figure that actually tells a buyer about space.Which district is it in — Shah Alam, Klang or Petaling?
daerah: “-” on both records, which is itself a finding. On the weight of evidence the district is Klang: the Bursa filing describes the joint-development land as being “in Klang”, and all four neighbouring Setia Alam Impian register records in the same Seksyen 35 print daerah: Klang. That is published here as weight of evidence and never as a filed fact for this project. The only “Petaling” string anywhere is the licensee’s business address in the register — the OIB Marketing office at Ara Damansara, 25 km away — which has nothing to do with the land, so there is no in-record conflict to resolve. The local authority is settled: Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam, from the plan references MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/375 and MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/374 and from all three filed brochures — and MBSA’s jurisdiction is the City of Shah Alam only. No lot or PT number and no mukim is published by any source. Both Selangor state registries were inert when queried: ehartanah.lphs.gov.my carries the search term into its own pagination links and still returns the default unfiltered listing, and kuotalphs.selangor.gov.my returned a server error. An inert registry is never a negative.Is there a floor plan, and why is there not one on this page?
Get the filed particulars, the price list and the Schedule G agreement
Louis will send you the filed KPKT advertisement brochures for both phases, the register extracts for 30962-1 and 30962-2, the developer’s current price list for the house type you want, and the prescribed Schedule G sale and purchase agreement — and will tell you plainly where a document does not exist.
Louis Koh, Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd, Registered Estate Agency · marketing information, not an offer.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd, Registered Estate Agency
Over a decade covering Johor Bahru and the Klang Valley. Louis builds these pages the hard way: the filed KPKT particulars first, every hard number attributed to a named published source, and an explicit list of what nobody publishes — because on a project like this one, where the licensee is named after neither the brand nor its parent, where one of the two registered phases carries the township’s name instead of its own, and where about 70% of the claimed township GDV has no licence at all, the gaps are the useful part. Ask him anything on this page and he will show you the document it came from, or tell you plainly that there is not one.
Published 9 October 2026 · Last verified 9 October 2026 against KPKT TEDUH projects 30962-1 and 30962-2 (with 30962-3 and 30962-4 checked and returning 404), the licensee record for Total Majority Sdn. Bhd. under developer code 30962, the three filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochures at files/30962/30962-1/, files/30962/P45/P45-20260710-00019856/ and files/30962/30962-2/, the developer’s own two statutory entries and amenity table on myra.com.my, the Bursa Malaysia filing of 21 December 2023 as reported, the four GreenRE tier registers, the GBI directory, both Selangor state property registries, and the published press and portal coverage of 2025 and 2026. This is marketing information, not an offer. Filed particulars change — verify at teduh.kpkt.gov.my under 30962-1 and 30962-2 before you rely on anything here.
Worth putting beside this one
SelangorErat Residence @ Alam Impian, Seksyen 35, Shah Alam — registered <b><code>KONDOMINIUM ERAT</code></b>, KPKT project <code>9760-6</code>: <b>269 condominium units on <code>Jadual H</code> in one 27-storey tower</b>, <b>no extension of time has ever been filed</b>, and <b>the published “20% take-up” is refuted by the developer’s own later filing — <i><code>Baki belum dijual (251 unit)</code> makes it 18 of 269 = 6.69%</i></b>
WhatsApp
Selangor
Selangor
Selangor
Selangor<b>Laman Embun</b> @ <b>City of Elmina</b> (Elmina West), Shah Alam — <b>110 two- and three-storey SHOP OFFICES, and it sits OUTSIDE the <a class='cz-gl' href='/glossary/#hda' title='Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 — the statute that requires a developer licence, an advertising and sales permit, a Housing Development Account and a prescribed sale contract, and that opens the Tribunal route to a buyer'>Housing Development Act</a>: NO developer licence, NO <a class='cz-gl' href='/glossary/#apdl' title='APDL — the Advertising and Sales Permit a licensed developer must hold before it may advertise or sell; it is a separate instrument from the developer licence and carries its own, usually shorter, validity'>advertising and sales permit</a>, NO filed advertisement, NO <a class='cz-gl' href='/glossary/#schedule-h' title='Schedule H — the statutory sale and purchase contract prescribed for a building intended for subdivision into parcels, i.e. strata; the delivery period runs from the date of the agreement itself'>Schedule G or H</a>, NO statutory liquidated damages and NO filed completion date</b>
WhatsAppAsk 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.
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).
30962-1 · ALAM IMPIAN
Overall status: Lancar — on schedule
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rumah Berkembar 2 storeys Lancar | 5 / 5 | 314 m² ≈ 3,380 sq ft | 54 | RM2,015,800.00 – RM2,688,800.00 | 35.74% |
| Rumah Sesebuah 2 storeys Lancar | 6 / 7 | 350 – 370 m² | 16 | RM3,056,900.00 – RM3,552,700.00 | 35.63% |
Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.
This is the document the developer had to file, and the housing department had to approve, before it was allowed to advertise at all — served from the ministry’s own host. It normally carries the location plan, the developer licence and building-plan approval references, the expected completion date, the encumbrance position, and the unit count and price floor and ceiling for each type. The brochure a salesperson hands you can be reissued. This one cannot.
Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 30962-1. Re-read weekly.
30962-2 · MYRA TENUMAN
Overall status: Lancar — on schedule
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rumah Sesebuah 2 storeys Lancar | 5, 6 / 6, 7 | 350 – 370 m² | 46 | RM3,095,000.00 – RM4,449,000.00 | 22.94% |
Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.
This is the document the developer had to file, and the housing department had to approve, before it was allowed to advertise at all — served from the ministry’s own host. It normally carries the location plan, the developer licence and building-plan approval references, the expected completion date, the encumbrance position, and the unit count and price floor and ceiling for each type. The brochure a salesperson hands you can be reissued. This one cannot.
Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 30962-2. 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.
No floor plan is reproduced on this page — but the drawings are findable
A floor plan is the developer’s copyright. This site does not mirror one and let you assume it is official. What it can do is send you to the drawing itself.
The advertisement the developer filed and the housing department approved normally carries the location plan and the unit count and price for each type. A salesperson’s brochure can be reissued. This one cannot.
The drawing that binds the developer is the one attached to your own sale and purchase agreement. Anything on any website is a reference copy — check the schedule to your contract before you sign.