South Link Lifestyle Apartments @ Bangsar South — Kuala Lumpur
One 44-storey block, 1,422 serviced apartments on printed levels 9 to 52, a residents’ deck on level 8 and a retail podium on Ground and Basement 1. Registered with the government as RESIDENSI SAMBUNGAN SELATAN — a Malay name no marketing source uses. Licensed developer CITRA JAYA SEJAHTERA SDN BHD (1223448-V), KPKT code 19274 — a single-project SPV, not UOA, despite every marketing source naming UOA. Completed: CCC issued 15 April 2021. Anything transacted here now is a sub-sale.
I reply with the developer’s own filed advertisement panel and the KPKT register record for 19274-1, not a brochure summary — and I will say which of the three delivery dates each document prints.
19274-1 — the only source that carries the approved 28-month extension of time, the revised 29 May 2023 date, the CCC of 15 April 2021 and the registry price bandbangsarsouth.com — 26 named tenants at levels G-xx and B1-xx, which is what proves the “2-storey podium” is ground plus basementSouth Link Lifestyle Apartments at a glance
Twenty facts, each with the document that prints it. Where nothing was printed — the land area, the car park, a single pairable distance — the row says so rather than filling the gap. On a completed building the blanks matter more than usual, because a sub-sale buyer has no sales gallery to ask.
- Registered scheme name
- RESIDENSI SAMBUNGAN SELATANThe KPKT TEDUH register, record
19274-1, and the developer’s own project row inside the register’s developer entry. Malay, and used by no marketing source anywhere. “Sambungan Selatan” is a literal translation of “Southern Link”. This is the name a lawyer, a bank or a land-office search will return. - Marketing names
- South Link Lifestyle Apartments · South Link · SOUTHLINKThe developer’s primary form is the first; “South Link” (two words) is its short form and the building name in 26 tenant addresses; “SOUTHLINK” (one word) is the township map label and the form inside the subsidiary name UOA Southlink Sdn Bhd. “Southlink @ KL Eco City” is supported by no source and is an error.
- Licensed developer
- CITRA JAYA SEJAHTERA SDN BHD (1223448-V)KPKT developer code 19274, jumlahProjek 1, projek sakit 0, projek terbengkalai 0. NOT UOA. A single-project SPV with one project to its name, ever. The registration number
1223448-Vcomes only from the developer’s own brochure — TEDUH carries no registration-number field for this developer. - Current developer licence
19274/01-2026/0215(R)— LAPSED 24 January 2026The register’s current licence, 25 Jan 2023 to 24 Jan 2026, in both the project record and the developer record. Every one of the five licences and permits in the chain has lapsed, which is normal for a completed building and is said here plainly so nobody reads the brochure as a live offer.- Total units
- 1,422 serviced apartmentsTotal Serviced Apartment Units: 1,422 in the filed advertisement panel; the same figure in the register and in AR2021 (“one 44-storey block with 1,422 units”). Three sources, one number.
- Filed building type
- Pangsapuri Servis — serviced apartmentsRegister
19274-1; the filed panel prints Project Type: Serviced Apartments. UOA’s own website says “Serviced Apartments & Retail Podium” — naming a component the HDA filing does not cover. - Sale contract
- Schedule HJenis jadual: Jadual H in the register. Schedule H is the HDA sale form for subdivided buildings, so all 1,422 apartments were sold as strata title housing accommodation with full HDA protection.
- No SOHO, no office suites
- None — checked in the brochure directlyThe filed brochure contains no occurrence of “SOHO”, “suite”, “dual key” or “commercial unit for sale”; its only “office” word describes the neighbourhood. State it as a positive: the non-HDA component here is retail, not an office-suite tier sitting outside the HDA.
- What is NOT under Schedule H
- The retail on levels G and B1Outside the licence, outside Schedule H, outside HDA liquidated damages, outside any HDA housing development account. Today let to 26 tenants, unit codes
G-01…G-13AandB1-01…B1-19. Whether those lots were ever sold is NOT PUBLISHED. - Storeys
- 44 — the highest apartment floor is numbered 52bilanganTingkat: 44 (register), “44 storeys” and “Total Blocks: 1 block” (UOA), “one 44-storey block” (AR2021). The brochure’s “Levels 9 to 52” is floor numbering, not a count: 52 − 9 + 1 = 44. Levels 1 to 7 appear in NO source at all.
- Facilities level
- Level 8The filed brochure is the only source that assigns a level to anything. UOA’s website publishes the same list with no level and without the “blue oasis” pool deck.
- Tenure
- Freehold, as filed by the developerLand Tenure: Freehold (filed panel), UOA’s project page and AR2021 all agree. The register’s pegangan field is blank, so the claim rests entirely on developer-published documents, and the master title, lot and PT number are published by nobody.
- Approving authority & plan reference
- Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur ·
BP S1 OSC 2017 2957From the developer’s own filed panel. In the Federal Territory the DBKL plan reference inside the filing is the location proof — and it is the strongest single location fact on this project. Register: Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri WP Kuala Lumpur, coordinates 3.113276, 101.665456. - Original contractual delivery
- 29 January 2021Register: tempoh asal 36 months from the first SPA of 29 January 2018. The date the first buyers signed to.
- Approved extension
- +28 months — revised vacant possession 29 May 2023Register: pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempoh tambahan diluluskan 28 bulan, revised construction period 64 months. The longest approved extension found in this series, and no marketing source mentions it.
- The developer’s own advertised date
- July 2022Proposed Completion Date in the filed advertisement panel — matching neither government figure. Three documents, three dates.
- What actually governs
- CCC issued 15 April 2021 · 100% completeRegister: Status keseluruhan Siap Dengan CCC, peratus siap 100.00%, Tarikh CCC 15/04/2021; AR2021 independently states the project completed in 2021. So the building was finished BEFORE even the original 29 January 2021 deadline had been missed by much, and more than two years before the extended date. This page explicitly refuses to claim late delivery. Note: the register records NO vacant possession date (
-), only the CCC date. - Filed statutory price range
- RM397,300 – RM1,340,800Minimum Price / Maximum Price in the developer’s own filed advertisement panel, and harga in the KPKT register. The two public records agree to the ringgit — rare in this series. A project-wide 2018 filed band, never a per-type or per-unit price. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
- Foreign buyers
- The top end clears the RM1,000,000 floorKuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory apply a RM1,000,000 minimum per unit for a foreign buyer, with consent. The filed maximum RM1,340,800 is above it; the filed minimum RM397,300 is far below it. No source publishes a price per unit type, so the size of the eligible tier is unknown. And a sub-sale buyer is tested on their own price today, not on a 2018 advertisement.
- Land area & density
- NOT PUBLISHED — so no density figure appears on this pageKeluasan tanah is absent from the filed panel, the brochure body, UOA’s website and AR2021, and the register’s keluasan:
105 mpsis unusable (it is smaller than the largest filed built-up). Do not divide 1,422 by a township acreage. One honest check: ≈ 32 units per floor across 44 residential storeys — my arithmetic from two filed figures.
Jump to what you came for
This page is organised the way a sub-sale buyer actually asks — starting with the records that the marketing for this building has never mentioned.
Twelve things about this project that do not add up — and the source for each
Each card states what the government record says, what the marketing says, and who published which. Nothing here is inference unless the card says so — and where the honest reading is the less dramatic one, the card says that too.
A 28-month approved extension — and a CCC two years before the extended date
The register carries pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, +28 months, a revised construction period of 64 months and a revised vacant possession date of 29 May 2023 against an original contractual date of 29 January 2021. At 28 months it is the longest approved extension found anywhere in this series. And the same register records CCC on 15 April 2021 at 100% complete, with AR2021 confirming completion that year. Those two cannot both describe an outstanding obligation, so this page refuses to claim late delivery — the building was finished before even the original deadline had slipped by much. Most likely the delivery period was varied during 2020–2021 and actual completion overtook it; no source states that, so it is not asserted. All three records are printed above and in the timeline, and the reader can see them together.
Three delivery dates, from three documents, none matching
29 January 2021 — the contractual Schedule H date, 36 months from the first SPA (register). July 2022 — Proposed Completion Date in the developer’s own filed advertisement panel, matching neither government figure. 29 May 2023 — the revised statutory date after the approved extension (register). The brochure’s date is the odd one out, and it is the one a reader is most likely to find first.
The licensee is not UOA. It is a single-project SPV registered at a house
CITRA JAYA SEJAHTERA SDN BHD (1223448-V), KPKT code 19274, jumlahProjek 1. Nothing a buyer reads says “Citra Jaya Sejahtera”. Its registered address on the public register is No 9 Jalan Indah 16, Taman Cheras Indah, 56100 Kuala Lumpur — a house in Cheras, about as far from Bangsar South as Kuala Lumpur gets — while its business address is UOA Corporate Tower, Bangsar South. Both are on the register; both belong on this page. The SPV pattern is standard and is not a scandal, but it means the counterparty on 1,422 SPAs is a company with nothing else in it.
A second UOA company is attached to this development, and it holds no developer licence at all
AR2021’s corporate chart shows two wholly-owned subsidiaries on this project: the licensee, and UOA Southlink Sdn Bhd. The KPKT private-developer register contains no company with “UOA” in its name and none with “SOUTHLINK” — both queried directly, both zero. A company holding a licensed housing development must be on that register. This one is not, which is consistent with it holding the non-HDA retail parcel. Stated honestly: that is an inference from two negative register results plus a corporate chart, not a filed statement.
The “2-storey retail podium” includes a basement — proven by the developer’s own unit codes
“A 2-storey trendy lifestyle retail podium” reads to a buyer as two levels standing above the street. The brochure puts the commercial on Level G and Level B1, and the developer’s own township directory confirms it: tenant unit codes run G-01…G-13A and B1-01…B1-19, plus kiosks B1-K02 and B1-K03. One of the two levels is a basement. This page says “ground floor and basement”.
1,422 apartments are inside the HDA. The shops are not — and nobody says whether they were sold
The reassuring half first: Jadual H in the register means all 1,422 units were sold as HDA-licensed strata title housing accommodation, with statutory delivery periods and statutory liquidated damages. The podium is the other half: no Schedule H, no HDA liquidated damages, no HDA housing development account. And whether the retail lots were ever strata-subdivided and sold to third-party investors is NOT PUBLISHED — they appear in neither UOA’s own commercial-property index nor the UOA REIT portfolio, so they are in neither of UOA’s two public “we own this” lists. Suggestive of a sold-off parcel; not proof, and this page claims neither way.
On the filed band, the top end clears the KL foreign-buyer floor — and that breaks the pattern
Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory apply a RM1,000,000 minimum per unit for a foreign buyer, with consent. The filed statutory maximum here is RM1,340,800, which is above it — unlike three of the last four projects researched for this site, where the entire filed band sat below the floor. The filed minimum, RM397,300, is far below it. So at least some units were filed above the foreign-purchase floor — but how many and which types is NOT PUBLISHED, because no source publishes a price per type. And because this is a completed building, a foreign buyer is tested on their own purchase price today, not on a 2018 advertisement. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
The brochure’s distance table cannot be published, and here is exactly why
The filed brochure prints an accessibility map with 29 named places against 27 kilometre figures, in separate, uncoupled columns. Two independent reads of the same PDF produced inconsistent pairings, and the second could only cover all 29 places by duplicating values — so that pairing is demonstrably partly invented. Reconstructing a pairing from a mismatched column is estimating a distance, which this site does not do. So no place-to-distance pairing from this document appears here. What is published instead: the named places without figures, the honest note that the printed figures run 0.7 km to 6.0 km, and the developer’s own 15 to 20 minute walk from Kerinchi or Universiti LRT — which is the only travel fact on this page.
“Levels 9 to 52” is numbering, not a count — and seven levels are unaccounted for
44 storeys, per the register (bilanganTingkat: 44), UOA’s own page and AR2021 — and 52 − 9 + 1 = 44, because the numbering skips floors. Getting this wrong in either direction is the easiest factual error to make on this project. Separately: the brochure’s level schedule accounts for B1, G, 8 and 9–52 and levels 1 to 7 appear in no source at all. The obvious reading is car park, and it is probably right — but no source says so, and this page will not say it either.
A superseded permit in the brochure, a third suffix in the register, and a two-year gap
The brochure prints licence 19274-1/01-2020/45(L) and permit …45(P) with identical 2018–2020 periods, while the register lists …45(P) — the number the brochure calls a permit — inside its LICENCE history, and gives the current licence a third suffix, (R). The brochure’s permit was superseded by 19274-1/01-2022/01090(P), which has itself lapsed. And on the register’s own listing, cover runs to 22 January 2021 then does not resume until 25 January 2023 — with the CCC inside the gap. The previous-licence list may simply be incomplete, so that is what the register shows, not a proven lapse in cover — but it is not smoothed over here. Every one of the five instruments has now lapsed, the current one on 24 January 2026.
The register’s own fields contradict the project in three places
keluasan: 105 mps — about 1,130 sq ft, which exceeds the largest filed built-up of 904 sq ft and is absurd as a land area for a 44-storey, 1,422-unit tower. Unusable, and published here only so nobody later mistakes it for the land area. bilik tidur: 0 and bilik air: 0 for a 1,422-unit scheme — unpopulated fields, not a statement about the units. And Maklumat pembangunan: Berfasa (phased) while the same register gives the developer one project and 19274-2 returns a hard 404: one phase, filed as phased.
Six awards, all corporate; and on green, nothing is claimed — which is not the same as uncertified
Every one of the six awards on UOA’s awards page went to UOA Development Bhd or UOA REIT as companies — Edge TPDA top-10 placings, a Billion Ringgit Club return-on-equity award, two Centurion Club REIT awards. Not one went to a project; South Link is not mentioned on that page, and nor is the licensee. The claim that survives is corporate: a top-10 Edge TPDA winner twelve times since 2013. “South Link is an award-winning development” is supported by nothing, and no sibling UOA project may borrow these six either. On green: the developer claims no certification of any kind — not in the brochure, not on its project page. AR2021 tags the project for construction practices in a sustainability statement, which is not a rating and not a registration. Both public registers were then unreachable (GreenRE’s platform reported itself temporarily unavailable; GBI’s directory returned a server error), so the honest statement is inconclusive, not negative.
What was actually built, and the dated record behind it
The statistics band carries only figures a filing, the government register or a named source published — and there is deliberately no density tile, because no land area exists to compute one from. The facilities columns keep the Level 8 residents’ deck separate from the G and B1 retail podium, which the brochure merges and which sits outside the HDA filing.
-)19274-2 is a 404; filed as Berfasa anywayFacilities — the brochure’s levelled schedule, and the podium it files in the wrong column
Credit where it is due: the brochure publishes a text schedule with levels attached, which is better than several projects in this series manage, and neither source hides behind a graphic-only plan. The problem is the category blur: the brochure files the two commercial levels under Facilities, next to the residents’ deck. The columns below undo that.
Level 8 — the residents’ facilities deck
- Swimming pool
- Wading pool
- Pool deck
- “Blue oasis” pool deck — brochure only; absent from UOA’s own website list
- Children’s playground
- Pantry
- BBQ area
- Gymnasium
- Multi-purpose hall — the brochure’s own footer also calls it “Partyville”, a name UOA’s website does not use
- Surau
- Rest room / changing room
- Yoga terrace
- Nothing on this deck is marked “space only”, shell space or subject to a fit-out qualification by any source — a clean result, and worth saying
Levels G and B1 — filed by the brochure under “Facilities”, but it is the retail podium
- The brochure lists these under Facilities: F&B outlets, a convenience store, an entertainment and leisure lounge, a co-working space
- But G and B1 are the retail podium — outside the licence, outside Schedule H, today let to 26 independent commercial tenants
- Shops a resident pays to use are not facilities a resident owns a share of, and this page does not repeat the brochure’s merging of the two
- “2 storeys” is Ground + Basement 1, proven by the developer’s own tenant unit codes — not two levels above the street
What is actually trading in that podium today — 26 tenants, from UOA’s own township directory
- F&B, the overwhelming majority — Starbucks, MIXUE, ChaPanda, BabSang, Chongqing Chicken Pot, De Yuan Mee Tarik, Fukuniku, Gatherwell Hainan Coffee, LaFayette, Lam Heung Ling, Little Rice Orange, Mixbowlicious Express, Noodles Expert, Oh My Nasi Lemak, RempahMy, Shishido Express, Sour Little Seven, Spicy Little Fairy, Sushi Village, The Daily Greens
- Grocery and convenience, three of them — Food City, Good Time Chinese Supermarket, J&H Market
- Other — R Pharmacy, DHL, and Melody Kindyland South Link, a kindergarten
- Two of the brochure’s four promised categories do NOT appear: no co-working operator, and no entertainment or leisure lounge. UOA’s own Komune Co-working is listed in the same directory as a separate Bangsar South location, not a South Link tenant
- Read that carefully: a tenant directory is a snapshot of who trades now, not a record of what was built or committed. It does not prove the co-working space was never provided. What it shows is that the podium you walk into today is a food-and-grocery podium with a kindergarten and a pharmacy, not the lounge-and-co-working mix the 2018 brochure described
Not published, therefore not on this page
- Car park — nothing, at any level of detail. No total bay count, no number of car-park levels, no per-unit allocation, no per-type allocation, no ratio. For a 1,422-unit tower this is the first thing a sub-sale buyer asks
- What occupies levels 1 to 7. No source assigns any use to those seven levels
- Maintenance / service charge per sq ft, and the sinking fund contribution
- Whether the management corporation has been formed and handed over from the developer, and whether individual strata titles have been issued
- Whether the retail lots were strata-subdivided and sold, or retained — and their strata lot count (26 is a tenancy count, not a lot count)
- Whether the “24 Hours Housekeeping Service” the brochure promises is still provided post-handover. Such commitments usually end with the developer’s management period, and no source confirms it continues — so it is flagged here, not repeated as a current feature
- Whether the co-working space and entertainment lounge were ever fitted out
- Lift count and lift-to-unit ratio, and units per floor by type
- The floor ranges covered by the brochure’s “Low Zone” and “High Zone” labels. Some layouts carry them; no source says which floors each covers, and on printed levels 9–52 a zone split is commercially meaningful
Dated record — the filed panel, the KPKT register and the parent’s own annual report
BP S1 OSC 2017 2957 approved by Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, per the developer’s own filed advertisement panel. In the Federal Territory that reference is the location proof — and it is what settles this as a Bangsar South project under DBKL rather than anything in KL Eco City.19274-1/01-2020/45(L) and sale and advertising permit 19274-1/01-2020/45(P) take effect, both to 15 January 2020 — the two numbers the brochure prints. The register lists …45(P) inside its LICENCE history with the identical period, so the two documents disagree about what kind of instrument that number is.19274-1/01-2021/01492(P) takes effect to 22 January 2021 (register, previous licences). The brochure’s permit is now superseded — a reader taking the brochure at face value is reading a replaced instrument.19274-1/01-2022/01090(P) takes effect to 24 January 2022 — the register’s own project permit, and not the number the developer publishes.19274/01-2026/0215(R) takes effect to 24 January 2026 — a third suffix, (R), after the brochure’s (L) and (P). Note the gap: on the register’s own listing, cover runs to 22 January 2021 and does not resume until this date, with the CCC falling inside it. The previous-licence list may be incomplete, so this is what the register shows, not a proven lapse in cover.19274-1 and the developer record for code 19274, the developer’s own filed advertisement brochure on its own server, UOA’s project and awards pages, the bangsarsouth.com township directory and getting-here page, and UOA Development Bhd’s Annual Report 2021. No HIMS filed brochure exists for this licence (the register’s brosur field is null and the HIMS path returns a hard 404, where a control record from the same API printed a working one), so there is no third, independent copy to triangulate against — and where the two sources disagree there is no tie-breaker.Seven published built-ups, eighteen type codes, and no second source for any of it
Read this before you trust any size figure about South Link anywhere. The developer’s filed brochure publishes a layout schedule with seven built-ups — and that is the only schedule in existence. UOA’s own project page publishes no built-ups, no unit types and no bedroom counts at all, and the government register files bedrooms and bathrooms as zero. So the filed schedule stands uncorroborated by any second source, and ten of the brochure’s eighteen type codes have no published size at all. Every figure below is taken from the brochure’s layout schedule pages only, never from its narrative prose.
Type A and A1 — 452 sq ft
The brochure appears to contradict itself on this type, and both readings are the developer’s own. The layout schedule prints 1 BEDROOM + 1 STUDY; the brochure’s own floor-finish specification table treats the A types as studios (studio units get “laminate with tiles” where other types get laminate in bedrooms). A 452 sq ft unit sold as “1 bedroom + 1 study” is, in practice, studio-to-small-one-bedroom territory. This page gives the filed description and the specification table’s treatment and lets you judge — it does not pick one. No dual-key claim is made anywhere on this project, and there is no “studio office” type, because there are no office units in the scheme at all.
Ask whether a 452 sq ft unit is a studio or a 1+studyType B — 495 sq ft · Type C — 592 sq ft · Type C1 — 635 sq ft
Three of the mid-range types, grouped because they share the same provenance and the same gaps. Bathroom counts are only partly legible in the filed brochure and are therefore not stated as facts on any type except D. No square-metre figure is published by the developer for any type, so none appears here — converting them myself and printing the result would put a number on this page the developer never filed. Note the gap between B and C: a 495 sq ft two-bedroom and a 592 sq ft two-bedroom-plus-study are both compact, and whether a given sub-sale unit is one or the other is answered by its strata title plan, not by a listing title.
Ask for the filed layout scheduleType D — 721 sq ft · Type E — 829 sq ft · Type F — 904 sq ft
Type F at 904 sq ft is the largest built-up the developer filed for this scheme, and that matters for one specific question: the filed statutory maximum price of RM1,340,800. On a 904 sq ft unit that would imply roughly RM1,483 per sq ft — my arithmetic, and the pairing is NOT published, so treat it strictly as a sanity check and not as a fact about any unit. Nobody publishes which type sits where inside the filed band. Type D is the only three-bedroom type in the schedule and the only one whose bathroom count is clearly legible.
Ask which types reached the top of the filed bandThe ten -T variants — a whole set of type codes with NO published size
The brochure’s layout pages list eighteen codes: A, A1, A-T, B, B-T1, B-T1a, B-T2, B-T2a, B-T3, C, C-T, C1, C1-T, D, D-T, E, E-T, F. Ten carry a -T suffix and not one of them has a separately published built-up area — and no source explains what -T means. The obvious reading is a terrace or balcony variant of the base type, and the obvious reading may well be right, but no source says so and this page will not guess. The concrete consequence for a buyer: if you are looking at a sub-sale listing labelled “Type B-T2a”, there is no published way to learn its size. That is exactly the kind of thing to ring me about, and it is answered from the strata title plan rather than from any brochure.
-T variant actually is“Low Zone” and “High Zone” — labelled on the layouts, defined by nobody
Some layouts are marked “Low Zone” or “High Zone”, and the brochure nowhere says which floors each zone covers. No other source addresses it. On a tower whose apartments occupy printed levels 9 to 52, a zone split is commercially meaningful — it usually tracks lift banks and price — so this is a real gap rather than a cosmetic one. And the government register cannot help on layouts at all: it files bilik tidur: 0 and bilik air: 0 for a 1,422-unit scheme. Those zeros are unpopulated fields, not a statement about the units, and they are recorded here so nobody later reads them as one. Where does a reliable figure come from? The strata title plan and the SPA for the specific unit, and nowhere else.
Ask me to establish a specific unit’s zone and built-upLayout particulars read from the layout schedule pages only of the developer’s own filed advertisement brochure, hosted on its own server and linked from its own project page; never from the brochure’s narrative prose, because filed brochures in this series have been found describing a different project in their body text. Cross-checks attempted and failed: UOA’s own project page publishes no layout data whatsoever (its “About Property” box runs address, project type, land tenure, total blocks, total floors, total units, facilities and brochure — nothing on layouts), and the KPKT register files bedrooms and bathrooms as zero. No portal page for this project was reachable at all, so there is no third source either. The filed schedule therefore stands uncorroborated, and this page says so rather than implying the figures are triangulated. No metric conversion is printed, because the developer published none. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
One published image — and an honest explanation of why there is only one
The developer publishes no project gallery for this scheme. That is a checked finding, not a failure to look. UOA’s own project page renders a heading reading “Gallery” and contains no images, no slider and no carousel markup at all; its “GOOGLE MAP” section renders the label with no iframe, no embed and no coordinates. Its content management system is live and its media API answers normally — proven with a positive control — yet a search of that library returns nothing for “south link”, “southlink” or “lifestyle”, and a listing of the exact upload window for this project’s known assets returns 33 generic site-build files and neither of this project’s two images. A 404 negative control was run first to prove that reachability results on that host are meaningful. The entire published imagery for a 1,422-unit, 44-storey building is therefore two files: a project logo and the location map above. The logo is a brand mark, not a view of anything, so it is not on this page; the map is, with its subject confirmed from the developer’s own page rather than inferred from a filename. Nothing here is a stock photograph and nothing is a substitute subject — this site does not caption an image with a subject it cannot source. There is a straightforward reason for the emptiness: a building certified complete in April 2021, for which the developer publishes one logo, one map and a 2018 brochure, is a project the developer has finished marketing. The upside is that the building exists and can be photographed, which a project still on the drawing board cannot be. This page is waiting on imagery, and the right imagery for it is photographs of the actual tower, the actual podium and the actual unit — worth considerably more than a 2018 artist’s impression would have been.
Ask me for photographs and a viewingBangsar South, Kuala Lumpur — NOT KL Eco City, and the distances nobody can pair
Two things to settle here, and the filings settle both. First, this is Bangsar South. “KL Eco City” is in circulation as a spelling for this project and no source supports it — the two townships adjoin, which is exactly why sources mix them up. Second, the distances in the developer’s own brochure cannot be published, and the reason is set out in full below. The only travel fact on this page is the developer’s own 15 to 20 minute walk from Kerinchi or Universiti LRT.
Three different answers appear inside UOA’s own publications. Its residential index gives the location as plain “Kuala Lumpur”; its project detail page gives “Bangsar South”; and UOA Development Bhd’s Annual Report 2021 uses a carefully softer phrase, that the project is “located within the vicinity of Bangsar South”. That hedge is the developer’s own, about its own project, and it is softer than the marketing — worth quoting for exactly that reason. Because this is a Federal Territory project there is no Selangor-style public land register to cross-check against, so the DBKL plan reference inside the filing carries the location proof instead.
What the filings actually print about where this is
- Pihak berkuasa for the building plan: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, with approval
BP S1 OSC 2017 2957— from the developer’s own filed advertisement panel. DBKL’s planning jurisdiction is the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur only - Register
19274-1: Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri WP Kuala Lumpur, coordinates 3.113276, 101.665456 - The township directory on the developer’s own site lists “South Link” as one of eleven buildings in Bangsar South, with tenants at levels
GandB1; the township map graphic labels the building “SOUTHLINK” - AR2021 places it beside South View Serviced Apartments and Komune Living
- “Southlink @ KL Eco City” appears in NO filing, NOT on UOA’s site and NOT in the township directory. Treat it as an error.
- Master title, lot and PT number, mukim and section: NOT PUBLISHED by any source. There is no Bursa contract announcement for this project to recover them from, because UOA builds in-house through its own construction arm, so the usual contractor-announcement route does not exist
- Keluasan tanah (land area): NOT PRINTED — absent from the filed panel, the brochure body, UOA’s website, the register and AR2021. Hence no density figure on this page
- Sekatan kepentingan (restriction in interest): NOT PRINTED. No label, no value. And Land Encumbrance: None is a statement about encumbrance, not a disclosure of the project’s financier — no chargee is named anywhere
The ONE travel fact this page publishes — the developer’s own
- A 15 to 20 minute walk from either Kerinchi LRT station or Universiti LRT station into Bangsar South. Published by UOA on its own township page, for its own township
- Those two are also the only rail stations the developer itself names as the access stations on that page — it names no other rail
- Why this and nothing else: it is attributable, unambiguous, and it is a time a human can check on foot. Every kilometre figure in the brochure fails the pairing test in the next column
- It also sits awkwardly beside the brochure’s impression of proximity: the brochure’s two smallest figures, 0.7 km and 1.0 km, appear in its transport block, and its map marks a “Link Bridge to Universiti LRT Station”. A 0.7 km walk is not normally a 15–20 minute walk. Either the township figure is conservative, or the brochure’s transport figures are not walking distances, or both — and no source resolves it
- Bus: RapidKL route T788 from Mid Valley to Universiti LRT or The Village, Bangsar South, plus a complimentary Bangsar South shuttle service — both from the township page, with no frequency, route detail or distance published
- Highways named with no distance by any source: Federal Highway · New Pantai Expressway (NPE) · Jalan Syed Putra · SPRINT Highway · Damansara–Puchong Expressway (LDP) · and the Setiawangsa–Pantai Expressway (SPE / DUKE 3), which the township page itself describes as “upcoming”
Why not one kilometre figure from the brochure appears on this page
- The filed brochure prints an accessibility map with four headings, 29 named places and 27 kilometre figures — and it prints the names and the figures in separate, uncoupled blocks. The text layer does not interleave them one to one, so pairing a place with its distance requires the visual layout
- Two independent reads of the same PDF produced inconsistent pairings. The first recovered the complete set of 27 printed figures. The second assigned a figure to all 29 places — which it could only do by duplicating values, using 0.8 four times and 0.7 twice where the document prints each of those twice
- The second read’s pairing is therefore demonstrably partly invented, and no pairing from this document can be trusted. Reconstructing one from a mismatched column is estimating a distance, and this site never estimates a distance
- What can honestly be said about the figures: they run from 0.7 km to 6.0 km. That is the range, and it is all the range can tell you
- Two connections the brochure describes that are claims, not facts. Its map marks a “Link Bridge to Universiti LRT Station” — no source confirms it exists today. And it describes a “Proposed Walkway through KL Gateway to LRT” — the developer’s own word is “proposed”, and the route runs through a third party’s development, which is not something the developer of this project can deliver on its own. No source confirms it was built, so neither is on this page as an amenity
The places the brochure names — without distances, by its own headings
- Leisure (8): The Sphere · Nexus Bangsar South · Kelab Golf Perkhidmatan Awam · Mid Valley Megamall · Bangsar Village · Bukit Gasing · Taman Rimba Bukit Kerinchi · Bangsar Shopping Centre
- Institution (4): Universiti Malaya · Pusat Perubatan Universiti Malaya · MAHSA University · Brickfields Asia College
- Hospital (7): Life Care Diagnostic Medical Centre · Cengild Medical Centre · Sunfert Fertility Centre · Pantai Hospital · Universiti Malaya Hospital · Universiti Malaya Specialist Centre · Columbia Asia Hospital
- Public Transportation (10): LRT Universiti · LRT Kerinchi · LRT Abdullah Hukum · LRT Bangsar · KL Sentral · a station the brochure calls “Stesen LRT Taman Jaya Pesiaran Barat” · KTM Angkasapuri · KTM Pantai Dalam · KTM Mid Valley · KTM Seputeh
- Three problems in the developer’s own transport labelling. “Stesen LRT Taman Jaya Pesiaran Barat” conflates a station name with a road name — Taman Jaya is an LRT station in Petaling Jaya and “Persiaran Barat” is a road beside it; that is not a station name as any operator prints it. “Stesen LRT KL Sentral” is incomplete as a label, because KL Sentral is served by far more than the LRT, and calling it an LRT station understates it. And the list mixes LRT and KTM Komuter under one heading with one undifferentiated block of figures, which is part of why the pairing collapsed
Distances no source publishes — therefore not on this page
- KLCC · Bukit Bintang · TRX · KL Sentral by road · KLIA and KLIA2 · Subang Airport
- Mid Valley by walking route, and Bangsar LRT by walking route
- The nearest primary or secondary school, and the nearest international school — not one is named by any source
- The nearest MRT station on any line
- The nearest police station, fire station, post office, wet market and petrol station
- The nearest mosque, other than the surau inside the building
- On a township as well-known as Bangsar South the temptation to fill these in is strong. None of them is estimated here.
Location particulars read from the KPKT TEDUH register record for 19274-1 (district, state, coordinates); the developer’s own filed advertisement panel (approving authority and building plan reference); UOA’s own project page and residential index; bangsarsouth.com’s directory and getting-here pages; and UOA Development Bhd’s Annual Report 2021. No distance on this page was copied from any sibling Bangsar South project, and none was estimated. All read on 8 October 2026.
Statutory register — RESIDENSI SAMBUNGAN SELATAN, the filed panel against the government record
Malaysian law requires a licensed housing developer to file and display statutory advertisement particulars, and that filing is public. On this project there are two public records of it and they are the spine of this page rather than a footnote: the developer’s own filed advertisement panel, hosted on the developer’s own server and linked from its own project page, and the KPKT TEDUH public register. They agree on the price to the ringgit — which is rare — and they disagree on the delivery date, on what kind of instrument a licence number is, and on whether the project is freehold at all. Both columns are set out in full, with the disagreements marked, because on this project the disagreements are the useful part.
| (A) The developer’s own filed advertisement panel — labels in English, exactly as printed | (B) The KPKT TEDUH public register — record 19274-1 and developer code 19274 |
|---|---|
DEVELOPER: CITRA JAYA SEJAHTERA SDN BHD(1223448-V) — printed exactly like that, with no space before the bracket. This bracketed number is the ONLY registration number any public source gives for this companyDeveloper’s License No: 19274-1/01-2020/45(L) — LAPSED 15/01/2020Validity Period (licence): 16/01/2018 – 15/01/2020Sale & Advertising Permit No: 19274-1/01-2020/45(P) — LAPSED 15/01/2020, and SUPERSEDEDValidity Period (permit): 16/01/2018 – 15/01/2020 — identical to the licence period, which is what makes the two easy to confuseBuilding Plan Approval Body: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur Building Plan Approval No: BP S1 OSC 2017 2957 — the strongest single location fact on this projectProject Type: Serviced Apartments Total Serviced Apartment Units: 1,422 Land Tenure: Freehold Land Encumbrance: None — a statement about encumbrance, NOT a disclosure of the financier. No chargee is named anywhere Proposed Completion Date: July 2022 — matching NEITHER government date Minimum Price: RM 397,300 Maximum Price: RM 1,340,800 Diskaun Bumiputera: the field exists; its value is WITHHELD on this page under my standing compliance policy — and note the compliance observation that goes with it: the brochure prints it as free text, not as a labelled statutory field Levels, from the brochure body: commercial G and B1 · facilities Level 8 · apartments printed levels 9 to 52 · levels 1 to 7 unexplained What this panel LEAVES OUT, measured against the field list KPKT’s own advertisement template prescribes: sekatan kepentingan — absent entirely. Bilangan tingkat — absent from the panel. Tempat letak kereta — absent entirely, at any level of detail. Keluasan tanah — absent entirely, which is why no density figure appears on this page. Pihak berkuasa yang meluluskan — replaced by an English near-equivalent. A named chargee — none And note the labels themselves: this panel is in ENGLISH. It is not headed BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN and uses none of the standard Malay statutory labels — which is part of why several fields that template requires are simply missing | Nama projek RESIDENSI SAMBUNGAN SELATAN — the registered scheme name, used by NO marketing source anywhere Nama pemaju CITRA JAYA SEJAHTERA SDN. BHD., developer code 19274Registration number NOT PRINTED — TEDUH carries no company registration number field for this developer; 1223448-V rests on the brochure aloneAlamat berdaftar No 9 Jalan Indah 16, Taman Cheras Indah, 56100 Kuala Lumpur — a house in Cheras Alamat perniagaan UOA Corporate Tower, Lobby A, Avenue 10, The Vertical, Bangsar South City, No. 8 Jalan Kerinchi, 59200 Kuala Lumpur Telefon primary - (not provided); secondary +603 2245 9188 · Emel - · Laman web -Jumlah projek 1 · Projek sakit 0 · Projek terbengkalai 0 — on a completed project, the most reassuring government-sourced fact available Lesen pemaju (semasa) 19274/01-2026/0215(R), 25 Jan 2023 – 24 Jan 2026 — LAPSED. Note the third suffix, (R)Lesen / permit terdahulu 19274-1/01-2020/45(P) (16/01/2018–15/01/2020, listed by the register inside its LICENCE history — the number the brochure calls a permit) · 19274-1/01-2021/01492(P) (23 Jan 2020–22 Jan 2021) · 19274-1/01-2022/01090(P) (25 Jan 2021–24 Jan 2022, the register’s project permit) — all lapsedNegeri / Daerah WP Kuala Lumpur / Kuala Lumpur · Koordinat 3.113276, 101.665456 Jenis Pangsapuri Servis · Bilangan tingkat 44 · Unit 1,422 Jenis jadual Jadual H — so all 1,422 apartments are HDA-licensed strata title housing accommodation Tempoh asal 36 bulan · Tarikh PJB pertama 29 Jan 2018 · Serah kosong ikut PJB 29 Jan 2021 Pindaan tempoh serah kosong YA · Tempoh tambahan diluluskan 28 BULAN · Tempoh pembinaan baharu 64 bulan · Serah kosong baharu 29 MEI 2023 — the longest approved extension found in this series, and absent from every marketing source Status keseluruhan Siap Dengan CCC · Peratus siap 100.00% · Tarikh CCC 15 APRIL 2021 · Tarikh VP - — NOT RECORDEDHarga 397,300.00 – 1,340,800.00 — agreeing with the filed brochure to the ringgit, and repeated as RM397,300.00 - RM1,340,800.00 in the developer recordPegangan (tenure) NOT PROVIDED — the register does not corroborate the developer’s freehold claim Maklumat pembangunan Berfasa (phased) — while the same register gives the developer ONE project and 19274-2 returns a hard 404. One phase, filed as phasedBrosur null — NO HIMS filed brochure exists for this licence. The HIMS path returns a hard 404 where a control record pulled from the same API in the same session printed a working one, so the register itself has no brochure on fileKeluasan 105 mps — UNUSABLE and not published here as anything. About 1,130 sq ft, which exceeds the largest filed built-up of 904 sq ft and is absurd as a land area for a 44-storey, 1,422-unit tower. The field is used inconsistently across the register — a land area on one control record, a per-unit built-up on anotherBilik tidur / bilik air 0 / 0 — unpopulated fields for a 1,422-unit scheme, not a statement about the units Status note, verbatim “Status komponen adalah berdasarkan laporan 7(f) terkini di HIMS.” |
Read the two columns together, because four differences matter. First, the delivery date. The panel prints July 2022; the register prints a contractual 29 January 2021, an approved 28-month extension and a revised 29 May 2023 — and then, in the same record, CCC on 15 April 2021 at 100% complete. Three dates, and a completion certificate that predates the earliest of the two government ones by only weeks and the latest by more than two years. This page prints all three and explicitly refuses to claim late delivery, because nothing supports that and the CCC contradicts it. Second, the licence suffixes. The panel calls …45(L) the licence and …45(P) the permit; the register lists …45(P) inside its licence history with the identical period, and its current licence carries a third suffix, (R). The register’s numbers and suffixes are what this page publishes. Third, tenure. The panel says Freehold; the register leaves pegangan blank. Fourth, the price — and here they agree exactly, which is unusual enough in this series to be worth saying out loud. Two absences run across both columns and are not cosmetic: no land area, which is why this page prints no density figure, and no registration number for the licensee in the government record.
Price labelling, so there is no ambiguity about what is published above. Both RM figures are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum — Minimum Price and Maximum Price as the developer’s own filed advertisement panel prints them, and harga as the KPKT register prints them, and the two records agree to the ringgit. This is a project-wide band as advertised in 2018, never a per-type and never a per-unit price: nobody publishes which type falls where inside it. It is also not a current price. The project is completed, so current values are sub-sale market values and are a different thing entirely. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The price that governs what you pay on a sub-sale is the one in your own SPA, supported by a current valuation.
Can a foreigner buy here? On the filed band, the top end clears the floor — and that is news
Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory apply a minimum purchase price of RM1,000,000 per unit for a foreign buyer, with consent required. Hold the filings against it. The filed statutory maximum is RM1,340,800, which is ABOVE the RM1,000,000 floor. The filed statutory minimum, RM397,300, is far below it. On three of the last four projects researched for this site the entire filed band sat below RM1,000,000; this one breaks that pattern at the top end, and for an overseas reader that is genuinely useful news. Now the limits, stated precisely because the precision is the whole value of saying it: no source publishes a price per unit type — not the brochure, not the register, not UOA’s website — so how many of the 1,422 units were filed at or above RM1,000,000, and which types they were, is NOT PUBLISHED. The size of the eligible tier is unknown. Two further cautions. The largest filed built-up is 904 sq ft, so a RM1,340,800 filing implies roughly RM1,483 per sq ft — my arithmetic, on a pairing nobody publishes, offered only as a sanity check. And the 2018 filed band is not today’s price: this is a completed building, so a foreign buyer transacting in the sub-sale market is tested against the RM1,000,000 floor on their own purchase price at today’s values, and whether a given unit clears it today is a question for a current valuation that no source on this page answers. On building form the units qualify, since all 1,422 are filed Schedule H strata title housing accommodation. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Construction progress, and what the register can and cannot tell you about handover
100.00% complete, Siap Dengan CCC, CCC dated 15 April 2021. The register’s own status note explains where that comes from: “Status komponen adalah berdasarkan laporan 7(f) terkini di HIMS” — the latest Form 7(f) progress return. So the completion datum on this project is the government’s, not the developer’s, and it is corroborated independently by UOA Development Bhd’s Annual Report 2021, which states that “the year 2021 also saw the completion of South Link Lifestyle Apartments”. What the register cannot tell you is when keys were handed over: the Tarikh VP field reads - and is not recorded at all. For a 100%-complete scheme that is an internal gap in the government record, and it means the public record cannot answer the actual vacant possession date. What a sub-sale buyer should take from the extension, concretely: the 28-month extension of time is on the public record, so it is discoverable by anyone, and the question it raises — whether any individual purchaser’s liquidated damages entitlement was affected by the variation — is a question for that purchaser’s own SPA and their solicitor, not something this page can answer. Why the extension was granted, and under what provision, is published by nobody.
What this page does not publish, and why
My 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 this project that has exactly one concrete consequence, and it is worth stating precisely rather than vaguely: the developer’s own filed advertisement panel carries a Diskaun Bumiputera entry as a free-text line. The field exists; its value is withheld here, and the compliance observation that goes with it is that it is printed as free text rather than as a labelled statutory field. Those words appear nowhere else on this page. No below-statutory-minimum marketing figure was found for this project, because no portal page for it was reachable at all — so nothing was withheld on that ground either. If you later find a portal “from RM——” figure for South Link, it needs checking against the filed minimum of RM397,300 before it goes anywhere. And on current value: no registry transaction band could be obtained for this page — the transaction source returned a hard refusal to this research. Rather than quote a portal figure of unknown provenance, this page says plainly that a current market figure needs a NAPIC or land-registry check, and I will pull one. The full list of things nobody publishes — the land area, the lot and mukim, the chargee, the car park at every level of detail, the -T built-ups, the zone floor ranges, the unit mix, the retail lots’ status and count, the use of levels 1 to 7, the service charge, the management corporation handover, the actual vacant possession date and the licensee’s registration number — is set out in the facilities columns above and in the FAQ. Ask me and I will put any of them in writing to Citra Jaya Sejahtera Sdn Bhd and to the building’s management.
Citra Jaya Sejahtera Sdn Bhd — a single-project SPV registered at a house in Cheras, and the credentials this page refuses to borrow
The licensed developer is CITRA JAYA SEJAHTERA SDN BHD (1223448-V), named in its own filed advertisement panel and carried in the KPKT TEDUH register as developer code 19274, with jumlahProjek 1, projek sakit 0 and projek terbengkalai 0. Nothing a buyer reads says “Citra Jaya Sejahtera”. UOA’s project page, its residential and track-record indexes, its township site and its annual-report narrative all present this as a UOA development — and in commercial substance it is. But the entity that held the developer’s licence, signed 1,422 Schedule H agreements and bore the HDA obligations is the SPV, not the brand, and three things follow that a buyer should know. One: it is a single-project vehicle. The register confirms one project to its name, ever. Now that the scheme is finished and its statutory periods have run, the counterparty on 1,422 SPAs is a company with nothing else in it. That is standard Malaysian practice and it is not a scandal — but a buyer researching “the developer” will research the wrong company unless told. Two: it has two addresses, and the registered one is a house. The register’s registered address is No 9 Jalan Indah 16, Taman Cheras Indah, 56100 Kuala Lumpur — a residential address in Cheras, about as far from Bangsar South as Kuala Lumpur gets — while the business address, which the brochure also prints, is UOA Corporate Tower, Lobby A, Avenue 10, The Vertical, Bangsar South City, No. 8 Jalan Kerinchi. Both are on the public register; both belong here. Three: the clean compliance record is worth saying. No sick project, no abandoned project. On a completed building that is the single most reassuring government-sourced fact available, and it is worth more to a client than any brochure adjective. One caveat on identity: the register carries no company registration number for this developer at all — 1223448-V comes only from the developer’s own brochure, so ask for the number and the shareholders before you rely on either.
Above the SPV, the chain is a listed group — and there is a second company attached to this development that holds no developer licence at all. UOA Development Bhd’s own Annual Report 2021, a Bursa-listed company’s filed document, shows Citra Jaya Sejahtera Sdn Bhd at 100% in its corporate structure and UOA Southlink Sdn Bhd at 100% alongside it, with UOA Development Bhd (654023-V) above them — that registration number is the one printed in the copyright line on the township site — and United Overseas Australia Ltd named as the ultimate holding company, whose internal audit department performs the group’s internal audit. Now the second entity. The KPKT private-developer register contains no company whose name contains “UOA” and none whose name contains “SOUTHLINK” — both queried directly, both returning zero records. A company holding a licensed housing development must be on that register. UOA Southlink Sdn Bhd is not, which is precisely what you would expect of an entity holding a non-HDA commercial parcel — here, the G and B1 retail podium. State the limit of that honestly: it is a consistent and defensible reading drawn from two negative register results plus a corporate chart, not a filed statement, and this page presents it as an inference. One more detail worth flagging and then leaving alone: UOA’s own disclaimer page prints an internally inconsistent registration-number pair for a third group entity, pairing a 2004-vintage twelve-digit number with an old-format serial that cannot belong to it. One of the two numbers on the developer’s own disclaimer page is wrong, so neither is reproduced here. And no joint venture, land vendor or partner share appears in any source: this reads as wholly UOA-owned through two 100% subsidiaries.
On awards, this page borrows nothing, and the reason is specific. UOA’s awards page was read in full, including its second page, which returns the same six entries. Every one of the six is a corporate award. Three are The Edge Malaysia Top Property Developers Awards top-10 placings — 2025 (the twelfth since 2013), 2024 (the eleventh) and 2023 (the tenth) — awarded to UOA Development Bhd as a company. One is an Edge Billion Ringgit Club award for the highest return on equity over three years, for the sixth consecutive year, again to the company. Two are Edge Centurion Club awards for the highest profit-after-tax growth over three years in the REIT sector, awarded to UOA REIT. Not one of these awards was given to a project. South Link Lifestyle Apartments is not mentioned anywhere on that page, and nor is the licensee — Citra Jaya Sejahtera Sdn Bhd appears on no awards list anywhere. There is a correct way to use this and an incorrect way, and the difference is not cosmetic. Correct: “the developer group has been a top-10 Edge TPDA winner twelve times since 2013” — true, attributable and genuinely meaningful. Incorrect: “South Link is an award-winning development” — supported by nothing. This matters beyond this page, because the same six corporate awards sit behind every UOA project in this township. If you see one of them attributed to a specific Bangsar South building — on any site, including a sibling page — it has been borrowed.
On green certification, the honest answer is “nothing is claimed, and the registers could not be checked” — which is not the same as “not certified”. Taking those in order. The developer claims no green certification of any kind for this project. The filed brochure contains no mention of GBI, GreenRE, “green building” or any certification — that was asked of the document explicitly. UOA’s own project page shows no rating, no logo and no certification line. What AR2021 does do is tag the project in its sustainability statement’s project lists for energy and water efficiency, cut-and-fill earthworks, soil stabilisation, pollution control, durable aluminium formwork and construction-waste management — and those are construction-practice disclosures in a sustainability report. They are not a certification, not a rating and not a GBI or GreenRE registration, and they must not be presented as one. Then the registers were queried, and both were unreachable: GreenRE’s project platform returned no project rows at all and a notice that it is temporarily unavailable, with its registered-projects counter reading zero — a platform outage, not a result; and GBI’s public directory returned a server error on a keyword query, with its own counters reading zero and its newer host failing to resolve. So the correct statement, and the one this page uses, is that the developer claims no green certification for this project and the public registers could not be queried to confirm or exclude one. That is inconclusive, not negative. And nothing transfers in: no sibling project’s rating, provisional or final, says anything about this building.
Four structural gaps are worth naming, because they are why several blanks on this page stay blank. First, there is no HIMS filed brochure for this licence. The register’s own brosur field reads null and the HIMS path returns a hard 404 — and that is not a path-form problem, because a control record pulled from the same API in the same session did print a working HIMS brochure URL. The consequence: everything in the left-hand column of the register table above comes from the developer’s own brochure on the developer’s own server, cross-checked field by field against the government register, with no third independent copy to triangulate against. Where the two disagree, there is no tie-breaker. Second, there is exactly one registered phase. 19274-2 returns a hard 404 and the developer record independently confirms one project — so no hidden sibling scheme is riding this licence, unlike several others in this series where one licence carried four schemes. Third, there is no Bursa route into the project’s own parcel. UOA builds in-house through its own construction arm, so the contractor-announcement route that recovers a lot number, a land area and a car-park count on other projects simply does not exist here; and the parent’s own List of Properties table, which would have carried the land area, tenure and net book value for this parcel, could not be extracted from the annual report PDF — attempted twice, including a direct offset read. That is why the land area, the lot and mukim, the car-park count and the contractor’s identity all remain unrecovered, and why this page carries no density figure. Fourth, the project website the developer filed does not exist. The brochure prints www.uoa-southlink.com, which fails at DNS — a dead filed URL is common and is not in itself a red flag. Worth knowing separately: southlink.com.my DOES resolve, to a default server test page with no content at all. A live-but-empty lookalike domain is the kind of thing worth being aware of before you type a URL from a 2018 brochure.
Finally, the developer’s own words, and which of them survive scrutiny. UOA’s project page describes the scheme as “Linking prestige with affordability”, with “a myriad of amenities and conveniences with its 2-storey trendy lifestyle retail podium”, “easily accessible via major highways and public transportation” and a “strategically connected location at Bangsar South”. Taking those honestly: “prestige with affordability” is unmeasurable positioning, and the only concrete content in the word “affordability” is the filed band itself, which runs a 3.4× spread from RM397,300 to RM1,340,800. “A myriad of amenities” describes eleven items on one deck. “Trendy” is unsupported, and “2-storey” is ground plus basement. “Easily accessible” is partly supported — the township page does name five highways and two LRT stations — but the same township page puts the LRT walk at 15 to 20 minutes. “Strategically connected” is unmeasurable. The brochure’s taglines run “THE BEST OF YOUR WORLD WITH THE PULSE OF THE CITY”, “GET THE BEST OF THE WORLD”, “IN THE HEART OF URBAN LIFESTYLE” and “just a stone’s throw away” — unsupported superlatives with no referent, and the last of them sits in the same document whose distance figures cannot be paired to places. One claim does survive, and credit where it is due: “JUST A LIFT AWAY” is fair in substance, because the retail genuinely is in the same building, confirmed by the developer’s own tenant directory. And one is a service commitment rather than a superlative: the brochure’s “24 Hours Housekeeping Service”. No source confirms it is still provided post-handover, and such commitments usually end with the developer’s management period — so it is flagged here and not repeated as a current feature. Notably absent, and this is genuinely good news: the developer makes no “first”, “largest”, “tallest”, “only”, “exclusive” or “low density” claim anywhere. There is no density boast on this project to debunk.
Developer, award and certification particulars read from the developer’s own filed advertisement brochure on uoa.com.my; the KPKT TEDUH project record for 19274-1 and developer record for code 19274, plus the 404 on 19274-2 and the zero-record results for q=UOA and q=SOUTHLINK; UOA’s own project page, residential index, track-record index, commercial index, UOA REIT corporate information, awards page (both pages) and disclaimer page; bangsarsouth.com and its directory and getting-here pages; UOA Development Bhd’s Annual Report 2021; and the GreenRE and GBI public registers, both of which were unreachable. No award, green rating, distance or image on this page was taken from any sibling UOA or Bangsar South project, and no corporate award is attributed to this development. All read on 8 October 2026.
Questions buyers actually ask about South Link @ Bangsar South
Was South Link delivered late? The register shows a 28-month extension.
-), only the CCC date, so the public record cannot say when keys were actually handed over, and whether any individual purchaser’s liquidated damages entitlement was affected by the variation is a question for that purchaser’s own SPA and their solicitor.And the developer’s brochure prints a third date. Which one is right?
Is this project in Bangsar South or in KL Eco City?
bangsarsouth.com lists “South Link” as one of eleven buildings in Bangsar South, with tenants at levels G and B1; and the township map graphic labels the building “SOUTHLINK”. Not one filed or developer source anywhere places this project in KL Eco City. Two honest footnotes, though. UOA’s own residential index gives the location as plain “Kuala Lumpur” while its detail page says “Bangsar South” — two UOA pages, two answers. And UOA Development Bhd’s own Annual Report 2021 uses a carefully softer phrase: the project is “located within the vicinity of Bangsar South”. That is the developer’s own hedge about its own project, and it is softer than the marketing.What is the project’s registered name? I cannot find “South Link” on the government register.
Who is the licensed developer? Is it UOA?
There is a second UOA company attached to this development. What does it hold?
The podium is “2 storeys”. Are the shops under the Housing Development Act too?
G-01…G-13A and B1-01…B1-19 plus kiosks B1-K02 and B1-K03. One of the two is a basement. Whether those retail lots were ever strata-subdivided and sold to third-party investors, or retained, is NOT PUBLISHED by anyone. They appear in neither UOA’s own commercial-property index nor the UOA REIT portfolio — so they are in neither of UOA’s two public “we own this” lists, which is suggestive of a sold-off parcel but is not proof, and this page claims neither way.Are there SOHO units or office suites here?
Can a foreigner buy at South Link?
What were the prices, and what is it worth now?
How many storeys is it? The brochure says level 52.
What layouts and sizes are there?
-T suffix with no separately published built-up (A-T, B-T1, B-T1a, B-T2, B-T2a, B-T3, C-T, C1-T, D-T, E-T). No source explains what -T means. If you are looking at a sub-sale listing labelled “Type B-T2a”, there is no published way to learn its size. Three: the brochure contradicts itself on the smallest type — the layout schedule calls A and A1 1 bedroom + 1 study, while the brochure’s own floor-finish specification table treats the A types as studios. A 452 sq ft “1 bedroom + 1 study” is, in practice, studio-to-small-one-bedroom territory. Both readings are the developer’s own; judge for yourself. The real figure for any specific unit comes from its strata title plan and its SPA, and nowhere else.How far is the LRT? How far is Mid Valley?
What facilities are there, and what is actually in the podium today?
Is South Link freehold?
Is South Link low density?
105 mps — about 1,130 sq ft, which exceeds the largest filed built-up and is absurd as a land area for a 44-storey tower, so it is unusable and is not published here as anything. So this page carries no density figure. And the trap to refuse explicitly: do not divide 1,422 by any Bangsar South township acreage — Bangsar South is a multi-parcel master development with at least eleven separate buildings on UOA’s own directory, so a township denominator would understate this tower’s density by an order of magnitude. One arithmetic check can honestly be made: 1,422 units over 44 residential storeys is about 32 units per floor on average — that is my arithmetic from two independently filed figures, and it describes a high-density slab layout. Credit where due: the developer makes no “low density”, “first”, “largest”, “tallest” or “exclusive” claim anywhere, so there is no density boast to debunk.Has South Link won any award? Is it green certified?
Which licence and permit number should I verify, and are they still live?
19274-1/01-2020/45(L) and permit 19274-1/01-2020/45(P), both valid 16/01/2018–15/01/2020 — lapsed over six years ago. The register adds 19274-1/01-2021/01492(P) (23 Jan 2020–22 Jan 2021) and the project permit 19274-1/01-2022/01090(P) (25 Jan 2021–24 Jan 2022), and gives the current developer licence as 19274/01-2026/0215(R), 25 Jan 2023 to 24 January 2026 — lapsed about eight and a half months ago. Four traps inside that. (a) A suffix conflict, and the register wins: the brochure calls …45(L) the licence and …45(P) the permit, but the register lists …45(P) — the number the brochure calls a permit — inside its licence history, with the identical period; and the register’s live suffix is a third letter again, (R). Publish the register’s numbers and suffixes, which is what this page does. (b) The developer publishes a superseded APDL: the brochure’s permit was replaced by 19274-1/01-2022/01090(P), which has itself since lapsed. (c) An apparent two-year gap in the register’s own record: licence cover runs to 22 January 2021 then does not resume until 25 January 2023, with the CCC (15 April 2021) falling inside the gap. The register’s previous-licence list may simply be incomplete, so this is what the register shows, not a proven lapse in cover — but it should not be smoothed over. (d) Never pass a licence validity off as APDL validity — on this project the two have different numbers, different suffixes and different supersession histories, and the brochure prints identical dates for both, which makes the confusion easy. The practical point: there is no live developer licence and no live advertising and sale permit for this project, because it is a completed building and anything transacted here now is a sub-sale.Why is there no gallery of photos on this page?
What does this page deliberately not publish, and why?
-T variants and what -T means, the floor ranges covered by “Low Zone” and “High Zone”, bathroom counts per type, the unit mix and lift count, price per unit type, maintenance and sinking-fund charges, quit rent and assessment, current sub-sale and rental values, the actual vacant possession date, why the 28-month extension was granted, whether the DLP was extended with it, whether the brochure’s “link bridge to Universiti LRT” exists and whether its “proposed walkway through KL Gateway” was ever built, whether the 24-hour housekeeping service is still provided, and the licensee’s registration number in the government register (TEDUH carries none; 1223448-V rests on the developer’s own brochure alone). Ask me and I will put any of them to Citra Jaya Sejahtera Sdn Bhd and to the building’s management in writing.Want the filed panel, the register record and a current market figure rather than a summary?
I will send you the developer’s own filed advertisement panel for South Link Lifestyle Apartments and the KPKT register record for 19274-1 — the record that carries the approved 28-month extension of time, the revised date of 29 May 2023, the CCC of 15 April 2021 at 100% complete, and the registry price band that agrees with the brochure to the ringgit. Because this is a completed building, I will also pull a NAPIC or land-registry transaction band for you rather than quote a portal figure, arrange a viewing, and photograph the actual tower, the Level 8 deck and the podium. And I will put every blank on this page in writing to Citra Jaya Sejahtera Sdn Bhd and to the building’s management: the land area, the lot and mukim, the chargee, the car-park count and ratio, the built-ups of the ten -T variants, the “Low Zone” and “High Zone” floor ranges, the service charge and sinking fund, the management corporation handover, the strata title position, and whether those G and B1 retail lots were ever sold.
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 projects, and I publish the filed statutory particulars and the government register record rather than the brochure copy. On South Link that is worth something concrete, and in both directions. The register is the only place that carries the approved 28-month extension of time and the revised date of 29 May 2023 — the longest extension I have found on any project on this site. It is also the only place that carries the CCC of 15 April 2021, which is why this page does not claim late delivery and will not: the building was certified complete before the extended date by more than two years, and the parent’s own annual report confirms completion that year. Being honest means refusing the dramatic reading as well as the flattering one. The register is also the only place that gives the registered name RESIDENSI SAMBUNGAN SELATAN, the only place that names the actual licensee — Citra Jaya Sejahtera Sdn Bhd, a single-project SPV registered at a house in Cheras, not UOA — and the only place that records no sick and no abandoned project against it. And it is the register, read against the brochure, that shows the 1,422 apartments sit inside Schedule H while the G and B1 retail podium sits outside the licence entirely, with whether those lots were ever sold published by nobody. On the foreign-buyer question, this one breaks the pattern: the filed maximum of RM1,340,800 clears the RM1,000,000 Kuala Lumpur floor, though no source publishes a price per type, so the size of the eligible tier is unknown. Where nothing is published — the land area, the car park, the -T built-ups, the retail lots, the use of levels 1 to 7 — I say so and I go and ask. And where the developer publishes no project gallery at all, I would rather photograph the real building than show you a 2018 artist’s impression.
Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 · Built from the KPKT TEDUH register record for 19274-1 and developer record 19274, the developer’s own filed advertisement brochure on its own server, UOA’s project, residential, track-record, commercial, REIT, awards and disclaimer pages, the bangsarsouth.com township directory and getting-here page, UOA Development Bhd’s Annual Report 2021, and the GreenRE and GBI public registers (both unreachable), all read on 8 October 2026. No HIMS filed brochure exists for this licence, so there is no third independent copy of the statutory particulars to triangulate against. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Worth putting beside this one
The Vertical Office Suites (Vertical Business Suites Tower A & B), Kampung Kerinchi (“Bangsar South”), Kuala Lumpur — <b>a STRATIFIED OFFICE PAIR of 35 and 32 storeys with NO KPKT REGISTRATION and NO DEVELOPER LICENCE EVER ISSUED for it</b> — so <b>no <code>Jadual G</code>, no <code>Jadual H</code>, no statutory liquidated damages, no section 7A housing development account, no filed completion date, no KPKT register entry to check and no Tribunal</b> — <b>while the Strata Titles Act 1985 and the Strata Management Act 2013 DO apply</b>; <b>TENURE IS CONTRADICTED 3 : 1 AND IQI’S OWN PAGE IS THE OUTLIER</b>; built-up published from <b>735 sq ft</b> with <b>no publishable ceiling</b>; <b>NO PRICE PUBLISHED AT ALL</b>; licensee of record <code>SUNNY UPTOWN SDN. BHD.</code> <code>10697</code> holds <b>FOUR</b> registrations and <b>not one of them is this building</b>; <code>Daerah Kuala Lumpur</code>, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur
WhatsAppUNITED POINT RESIDENCE, Jalan Lang Emas, Taman Sri Sinar, <b>52100 Kuala Lumpur</b>, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — <b>a COMPLETED <code>Pangsapuri Suite</code> under <code>Jadual H</code></b>: <b>2,509 units in three 38-storey blocks, CCC 19 December 2019</b> — and <b>registered as <code>PUSAT PERDAGANGAN BERPADU</code></b>, a trade-centre name on a registration that holds nothing but homes, under register code <b><code>14325-1</code></b>
WhatsAppSENTUL POINT SUITE APARTMENTS, Jalan Sentul Pasar, <b>51000 Kuala Lumpur</b>, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — <b>a COMPLETED <code>Pangsapuri Suite</code> under <code>Jadual H</code></b>: <b>2,352 units on TWO registrations, CCC 2 June 2020 and 17 February 2021</b> — and <b>registered as <code>Puncak Sentul</code>, the marketing name rendered into Malay AND REVERSED</b>, under register codes <b><code>14395-1</code></b> and <b><code>14395-2</code></b>
WhatsApp
Kuala Lumpur
Freehold
FreeholdAsk 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: UOA Group (10 developments on this site)
Where it is: Bangsar South, Kuala Lumpur (KL)
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).
19274-1 · RESIDENSI SAMBUNGAN SELATAN
Overall status: Siap Dengan CCC — completed
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pangsapuri Servis 44 storeys Siap Dengan CCC | — | 105 m² ≈ 1,130 sq ft | 1,422 | RM397,300.00 – RM1,340,800.00 | 100.00% |
Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.
Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 19274-1. Re-read weekly.
What to do with the number. Read it against the delivery date in your own agreement, not against what a salesperson says. A project with a year left on its statutory clock and a third of the building up is telling you something the brochure will not.
How does that compare? Every development on this site, grouped by register status — cancelled, abandoned and behind schedule first.