The NeX @ Kota Damansara, Taman Sains Selangor 1 — 242 units, NINE storeys, a stratified INDUSTRIAL warehouse hub on LEASEHOLD INDUSTRIAL land whose lease expires 18 October 2106 — and it is ENTIRELY OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act: NO registration, NO developer licence, NO advertising and sales permit, NO filed advertisement, NO Schedule G or H, NO statutory liquidated damages and NO price on this page

Five things this page exists to tell you

None of the five is in a brochure, and three of them come from documents the developer did not choose to publish. That is the whole argument for reading a page like this before reading a marketing site.

The unit schedule — one type code exists, and the rest is not published

There is no filed schedule to set beside the marketed one, because there is no filing. What follows is everything any source publishes about the units, and the gaps are the point.

No layout, elevation, plan or render is published by any source whose subject could be established, so none appears above and none has been substituted. Layout facts read 21 October 2026 from StarProperty, 22 June 2026, and one agent listing of 5 October 2026.

Why there are no renders on this page

No images from the developer’s marketing are reproduced here. A render is drawn to sell. It is not something the developer is contractually bound to build, and there is nothing in it you can check against a document.

Ask for these three in writing instead: the approved building plan, the unit layout with its stated built-up area, and the specification schedule attached to the sale and purchase agreement. Those bind the developer. A render does not.

Taman Sains Selangor 1, Kota Damansara — and how the district was actually established

No coordinate, lot number, PT number or mukim is published for The NeX by any source, and the two sources that name a frontage road name DIFFERENT roads. The map below is a locality pin on the park, not a parcel boundary.

What is on a register, and what is not — for The NeX @ Kota Damansara

On a licensed housing development this table is the statutory particulars block. Here it is a table of absences, and each cell names what was checked. Read the empty cells carefully: on this product NONE is usually the correct legal answer rather than a missing document — but CANNOT BE CHECKED is a third thing again, and where it applies the table says so instead of implying a clean result.

Scroll the table sideways. Every cell is a statement about a REGISTER or a FILING, not about the product — and on this project that distinction is the page’s whole value. Read 21 October 2026.

Sources: the KPKT TEDUH register of licensed developers and registered projects (searched on four name axes with a positive control); all four GreenRE tiers; a Bursa Malaysia related-party circular dated 24 July 2026 as reported by The Edge (13 March 2026), EdgeProp (25 July 2026) and businesstoday (3 June 2026); StarProperty (16 March and 22 June 2026); FocusMalaysia (13 March and 14 August 2026); the developer’s own microsite; and one third-party agent listing of 5 October 2026. Marketing information, not an offer.

Why there is no registration, stated as law rather than as a gap

A developer licence and an advertising and sales permit are required under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, and the Act reaches housing accommodation. A nine-storey stratified warehouse on land whose own title category is INDUSTRIAL is not housing accommodation. So no registration, no licence and no permit CAN exist for The NeX, and their absence is not a failure by anybody. FOUR INDEPENDENT NAME AXES WERE SEARCHED AGAINST THE MINISTRY’S REGISTER OF LICENSED DEVELOPERS, with a positive control run FIRST so that every zero below is a real zero. ONE, the distinctive group token: it returns exactly ONE licensee — BOON KOON COMMERCIAL SDN. BHD., code 30190. That is Boon Koon COMMERCIAL. The company the circular names as the purchaser of the land is Boon Koon CAPITAL, and the stem search covers both names, so this is a clean negative: the land-owning entity holds NO developer licence. TWO, the group brand: four licensees, and not one of them holds this project. THREE, the project name itself: six licensees, every one of them a substring decoy — the finest specimen has the three letters sitting inside the word “annexe”. FOUR, the land vendor’s parent name: four licensees, all of them in other states and all unrelated. AND THE STEP THAT TURNS “NO LICENCE FOUND” INTO SOMETHING MUCH STRONGER: the one licensee that does exist carries exactly ONE registration. That registration is a licensed RESIDENTIAL high-rise in this same district — 842 units, 40 and 42 storeys, a current advertising permit, construction part-built and a live delivery-period-extension field. Querying the NEXT registration slot on that same licence returns nothing at all. So the group held a live, current, in-district developer licence and DID NOT file The NeX on it. That is not an oversight. An industrial-commercial scheme is not a housing development and cannot be turned into one by filing it anywhere. SAY IT PLAINLY, BECAUSE ALMOST NO MALAYSIAN AGENT PAGE DOES: The NeX is not a licensed housing development, it carries no Schedule G or H, and its buyers have no Housing Development Act late-delivery claim, no statutory housing development account and no Tribunal route. That is not a criticism of the developer. It is the correct legal position for the product class — and a buyer who is not told it will assume protections that are not there.

The Bursa circular: why the best source on this project is a regulated disclosure rather than a brochure

Almost every other no-licence project this site has written up has a brochure and nothing else. This one has a filing, and the reason is a quirk worth understanding: the land was bought from a RELATED PARTY, so the purchase could not simply be announced. It required a circular to shareholders, an independent adviser, an independent valuation and a vote. WHAT THE REGULATED DISCLOSURE ESTABLISHES, and no marketing surface for this project publishes either of them: the tenure — LEASEHOLD, with the lease expiring on 18 October 2106, about 80 years remaining — and the title’s own land-use category, “leasehold INDUSTRIAL land”, named expressly by The Edge on 13 March 2026. Those two facts shape everything else on this page: the first is what a bank and a resale buyer actually price, and the second is why the residential foreign-buyer floors below are presented as an open question instead of as the rule. IT ALSO PUTS NAMED PROFESSIONALS AND NAMED ABSTENTIONS ON THE RECORD. Vendor Signature Cabinet Sdn Bhd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Signature International Bhd. Consideration RM66.0 million against an independent valuation of RM66.36 million by KGV International Property Consultants (M) Sdn Bhd. Independent adviser BDO Capital Consultants Sdn Bhd. Three interested directors — Datuk Seri Chiau Beng Teik, Datuk Chiau Haw Choon and Shelly Chiau Yee Wern — abstained from deliberating and voting. Shareholders approved on 13 August 2026. Acquisition funding 70% bank-financed on an indicative, non-binding 54-month term sheet from AmBank Islamic Bhd, and 30% from internal funds. An indicative term sheet is not a charge, and this page does not describe it as one. AND THE LIMIT OF WHAT IT GIVES US: the circular itself is dated 24 July 2026 and was not reachable from here. The reports OF it are. A related-party circular carries the lot or PT number, the mukim, the title particulars, the express conditions, the valuation summary and the development parameters — which is to say it would close most of the gap list on this page in one document. It is public, on the exchange’s own announcements site. Getting it is on Louis’s list.

⚠ TWO PARCELS, ONE PROJECT NAME, AND NOBODY SAYS WHICH — the most important unresolved question on this page

Chin Hin Group Property announced TWO separate Kota Damansara land acquisitions in 2026. Both are in Taman Sains Selangor 1 / Selangor Science Park 1. Both are leasehold. And both leases expire on the SAME DAY — 18 October 2106. THAT SHARED EXPIRY IS THE EVIDENCE, AND IT IS STRONG: two leases expiring on one date come out of ONE original alienation, which makes these sibling parcels and almost certainly adjacent ones. PARCEL A, announced 13 March 2026: 16,222 sq m, about 4.01 acres, bought by BOON KOON CAPITAL SDN. BHD. from Signature Cabinet Sdn Bhd — the related party — for RM66.0 million, with existing buildings described as a single-storey detached factory, a three-storey office and a double-storey factory, and a gross development value of RM449.43 million over 242 units in nine storeys. Approved by shareholders at an EGM on 13 August 2026. PARCEL B, announced 3 June 2026: 21,578 sq m, about 5.33 acres, bought from Simm Ventures Sdn Bhd, the registered proprietor, for RM92.5 million, carrying a vacant factory and warehouse of roughly twenty years with a two-storey office, about 75,349 sq ft of existing built-up. The acquiring subsidiary is NOT NAMED. No gross development value, no unit count, no storey count and no project name is attached to it by any source. No shareholder vote is reported, which is consistent with an unrelated vendor. EVERY PUBLISHED NeX FIGURE ATTACHES TO PARCEL A — the four acres, the 242 units, the nine storeys, the RM449.43 million. But no source reached says whether Parcel B is part of The NeX, a later phase of it, or an entirely separate development. AND THE CONSEQUENCE IS NOT ACADEMIC: if Parcel B is in, then every land-based figure on this page — area, density, plot ratio, value per acre — is wrong by a factor of 2.3. Aggregating the two would inflate the land base of this project to roughly 37,800 sq m on nothing more than a shared expiry date. So this page states that The NeX sits on the roughly four-acre Parcel A as published, does NOT aggregate the two, and prints the question open. Closed by: the circular of 24 July 2026, with the lot and PT numbers of each parcel, or a quarterly report naming the two parcels’ project allocations. Louis will ask.

The contradictions this page prints rather than resolves

Six, and every one of them is printed on the page above rather than smoothed into a single confident sentence. A page that hides a disagreement between its own sources is less useful than one that shows it. ONE, THE COMPLETION YEAR, and it is the worst of them: 3Q2030 from EdgeProp on 25 July 2026, traced to the circular; 2029 from FocusMalaysia on 14 August 2026, “slated for 2029, subject to relevant authorities’ approvals”; and 2030 from an agent listing on 5 October 2026. A FULL YEAR apart — and the EARLIER source gives the LATER date, which is the opposite of how a slipping programme usually reads. Two of the three say 2030 and the 2030 figure traces to the better document, so this page treats 3Q2030 as the governing one while printing all three. On a non-Act product a delivery date carries no statutory remedy either way, which is exactly why it must not be presented as a promise. TWO, THE FRONTAGE ROAD: Jalan Teknologi against Jalan PJU 5/19. Both are inside the same park. Unadjudicated — and it matters, because the frontage road is what an industrial buyer plans lorry access from. THREE, DIRECT OR INDIRECT SUBSIDIARY: The Edge on 13 March 2026 calls the land-owning company a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the listed parent; EdgeProp on 25 July 2026 and FocusMalaysia both call it an INDIRECT wholly-owned subsidiary. Two surfaces in the same publishing family disagree with each other. Unadjudicated — and it bears directly on who a buyer’s counterparty’s parent actually is. FOUR, THE FACILITIES, and the disagreements are substantive rather than cosmetic: TWO pickleball courts or ONE; a “garden terrace” or a ROOFTOP “lounge garden”; “meeting rooms” or “conference facilities”. Nothing in the facility list is assigned to a level by any source, nothing is marked space-only, and — because there is no filed advertisement and no statutory contract — NOTHING in it is contractually promised. FIVE, A CONTRADICTION INSIDE OUR OWN FILES, and it is printed here unadjudicated because pretending to settle it would be worse: an earlier fact sheet on this site records that the listed parent is the FORMER Signature International Berhad, while The Edge’s report of this very circular names Signature International Bhd as a currently listed, SEPARATE company with its own ticker, and as the vendor’s parent. Both cannot be straightforwardly true. No source reached reconciles them, and the exact relationship is what makes this a RELATED-party purchase, so it is not a trivial loose end. The document that would close it: the listed parent’s own annual report, at the corporate-information and subsidiaries notes. SIX, A SOURCE THAT CONTRADICTS ITSELF INSIDE ONE ARTICLE: one of the August 2026 reports is dated the 14th, refers to a shareholder approval “yesterday” on the 13th, refers to a market close on the 16th, and prints a market-capitalisation figure with a comma where a decimal point belongs. A source that contradicts itself within one article is a weaker source for everything else in it, and the 2029 completion year is in that article.

Who you would actually be contracting with — and the website that does not say

THE LAND-OWNING ENTITY is BOON KOON CAPITAL SDN. BHD., named by the circular and by four news reports of it as a subsidiary of Chin Hin Group Property Bhd (KL:CHGP). NO SOURCE ANYWHERE PRINTS ITS COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER. AND IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS THE DEVELOPING ENTITY. EdgeProp says expressly that the article does not name the entity that will develop the project. Land owner and developer are two roles, and only one of them is filled by a named company here. THE DEVELOPER’S OWN WEBSITE NAMES NO LEGAL ENTITY AT ALL. This is the severe finding on this job. The project’s microsite has no terms page, no conditions page, no disclaimer, no advertising-permit page, no footer entity and no registration number. The single company string anywhere on the whole site is “Chin Hin Property Development” — and it appears INSIDE A PRE-FILLED WHATSAPP MESSAGE rather than in a statutory block. “Chin Hin Property Development” is not a correctly stated legal name of anything. An earlier fact sheet on this site caught a major portal using that exact string as an error. Here it is the DEVELOPER’S OWN SITE using it. A buyer can read that entire website and still not learn the name of the company he would be signing with. WHAT THE REGISTER DOES PROVE, FROM THE REGISTER RATHER THAN FROM A CLAIM: the group’s licensing family is real and it is provable character-for-character. Four licensees share one identical registered office — a suite at MWE Plaza in Penang — three of them share an identical business address at Menara Chin Hin in Kuala Lumpur, and all four carry an @chinhinproperty.com mailbox. Both legs positive. The group link is established from the public register, not from a press statement. Three of those four carry ZERO registered projects: licensed companies with nothing filed. AND A WARNING ABOUT READING A LOCALITY OFF A LICENSEE RECORD: the one relevant licensee’s business address is printed in the register with a PENANG district stamped onto a Kuala Lumpur address. The register itself is internally inconsistent on that field. Never read a project’s location off a licensee’s address. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S OWN WORDS, and they belong on the page rather than in a footnote. Chang Tze Yoong, executive director and group chief executive, on the record: “While our core focus remains firmly on residential development” (StarProperty, 16 March 2026). “Our entry into the industrial segment is a strategic expansion that strengthens the group’s development capabilities” and “we approached this opportunity with discipline, undertaking extensive market evaluation before committing” (FocusMalaysia, 14 August 2026). “A selective and strategic expansion into the industrial-commercial segment” (FocusMalaysia, 13 March 2026). “A mature asset supported by an independent market valuation” (StarProperty, 16 March 2026). And from the circular itself, quoted by The Edge: a “measured and selective broadening of its development portfolio”. THE MOST USEFUL QUOTE IS THE HEDGE. The developer’s own chief executive says this product class is not the group’s core business, and three independent publishers confirm this is explicitly its FIRST industrial development. “First” is the one superlative on this project that is properly supported — and it cuts against the developer, because it means there is no track record in this product class to point at. Others named at the 22 June 2026 preview: Datuk Seri Chiau Beng Teik, executive chairman; Datuk Wira Chiau Haw Choon, managing director; Yap Chong Koon, group chief financial officer; Tan Zijin, senior general manager for marketing and sales; and Sonny Silvadanan, assistant general manager for project management. Note that the circular report writes the managing director’s honorific differently from the preview report — both spellings are in circulation and neither is corrected here.

Foreign buyers: the district, the zone, and why the FIGURE is not the answer on this title

THE DISTRICT IS Daerah Petaling, WHICH IS SELANGOR ZONE 1, AND THE DISTRICT’S VERIFIED FLOOR IS RM2,000,000 — FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. AND IN THE SAME BREATH: every source behind that zone table is a RESIDENTIAL acquisition instrument. The Economic Planning Unit’s acquisition guideline under section 433B of the National Land Code, the PTG Selangor circular and the earlier PTG Selangor directive are all residential instruments. Their application to an INDUSTRIAL strata title is NOT ESTABLISHED. And on this project we are not guessing at the title: The Edge names its category expressly as “leasehold INDUSTRIAL land”. So we KNOW the title is not residential, and we do NOT know that a residential floor reaches it. THIS PAGE THEREFORE DOES NOT PUBLISH RM2,000,000 AS “THE RULE” FOR THE NeX. It publishes the zone, the district, the verified residential floor and the fact that the question is open. THE REST OF THE ZONE TABLE, for completeness and because a reader will look for it: Zone 1 is Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Klang at RM2,000,000; Zone 2 is Kuala Selangor and Kuala Langat at RM2,000,000; Zone 3 is Hulu Selangor at RM1,000,000; Sabak Bernam is NOT VERIFIED and no figure is stated for it here; and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur is RM1,000,000 with Economic Planning Unit consent. AND ONE FIGURE A READER MAY HAVE SEEN ELSEWHERE IS EXPIRED: the RM1,500,000 window under a 2020 PTG Selangor circular has lapsed and is not current. It is named here precisely so that nobody carries it forward. AND THE HARDER POINT A FOREIGN BUYER MUST BE TOLD, which has nothing to do with a price floor at all: the land is LEASEHOLD, and a leasehold INDUSTRIAL title in Selangor normally requires STATE CONSENT to transfer. The lease expiry is published — 18 October 2106. The consent requirement, the premium payable on it, and whether any restriction in interest is endorsed on this title are ALL UNPUBLISHED for this project. SO THE HONEST ANSWER IS THE SHAPE OF THE ANSWER, NOT A NUMBER: get a written position from the Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor on foreign acquisition of industrial land in Daerah Petaling, together with the issue document of title for this parcel, BEFORE any deposit. Nothing else answers it, and this page will not pretend otherwise. Louis will make the enquiry with you.

The register fields that CANNOT BE READ — and why that is not a clean bill of health

On a licensed scheme this page normally reports a handful of live register fields. Here there is no project record at all to carry them, so each one is STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE. That is a different thing from a field that was checked and came back empty, and the difference is worth spelling out field by field. CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS — CANNOT BE READ. No percentage-complete figure exists in any source, and construction had not started at the last report. No figure is estimated here. DELIVERY-PERIOD EXTENSION — THE FIELD DOES NOT EXIST. No statutory delivery period was ever fixed for The NeX, so no extension to one can exist. And the contrast with the group’s own licensed residential registration in this same district is sharp: THAT record carries the extension field live and set to YES. Same group, same district, and the field is alive there. The difference is the product, not the developer. PREVIOUS-LICENCE RECORD — NOT APPLICABLE. There is no licence to have a history. THE ADVERTISEMENT FIELD — and this is a fourth state worth naming: it is not “not printed”, not “unreadable” and not an empty list. There is no record in existence to carry the field at all. OVERALL STATUS — CANNOT BE READ, AND THEREFORE A LATE FLAG CANNOT BE CHECKED. WRITE THAT DISTINCTION DOWN AND KEEP IT: “cannot be checked” is NOT the same as “not flagged”. This page does not state that the project is on schedule, because there is no register field in which lateness could be recorded. REMAINING UNITS — NOT APPLICABLE. No register maximum exists, so there is no published stock figure to work from and no floor to raise. The only way to know what is genuinely available is to ask the developer on the day. Louis will.

Awards and green certification: nothing to claim, and three rows that must not migrate onto this page

NO AWARD IS CLAIMED FOR THE NeX BY ANYBODY, and no green rating exists for it. ALL FOUR GreenRE TIERS WERE READ on 21 October 2026 and The NeX appears on none of them. But the honest form of that statement is narrower than it looks: three of the four tables TRUNCATE at their last visible row, so this is “no entry in the reachable portion” and never a clean negative. Only the top tier read complete. AND THERE IS A BENIGN EXPLANATION THAT MAKES THE ZERO LESS INTERESTING THAN IT LOOKS: the project had not been launched when the registers were read, and provisional certification is awarded on DESIGN. A row would not be expected yet. Whether any rating is being pursued at all is simply not published. THREE ROWS SIT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THIS PROJECT TO BE BORROWED BY A CARELESS PAGE, AND ALL THREE ARE REFUSED HERE BY NAME. ONE: a Silver row for Avantro under BOON KOON COMMERCIAL SDN. BHD. — the same licensee, the same group, the same name stem. It is a RESIDENTIAL project on the residential rating tool and it is a DIFFERENT PROJECT. It is refused. It is also, ironically, the row that cracked this job: it is what led to the licensee code that proves the land-owning company is unlicensed. Read the tiers for the GROUP, then refuse what belongs to a sibling. TWO, and this is the most dangerous row on the whole job: EM Hub Stratified Industrial Facilities, Kota Damansara holds a Bronze on the industrial tool, status FINAL, dated 29 May 2024. Same locality. Same product class. Same register. A different licensee, an earlier generation of the tool, and a FINAL certification where The NeX has none at all. A page that borrowed it would publish a FINAL green rating on an unrated project. Refused. THREE: a Gold row on the INTERIORS tool for Menara Chin Hin, held by a company whose name contains the group brand but which holds no developer licence anywhere. That is the group’s own HEAD-OFFICE INTERIOR. It is a CORPORATE rating, not a project rating, and it is not this project’s. Refused. AND THE AWARD-BORROWING TRAP IS ALREADY LIVE ON THIS VERY SITE, which is the reason this paragraph exists at all. Several Chin Hin group projects carry recognitions, and two pages already published here name The NeX — but only inside a GROUP PROJECT LIST, as a borrowed credential. Neither is a page about this project, and none of the recognitions on them belongs to it. Nothing is read back onto this page from either. No construction implying that this hub has won anything appears anywhere above. No BCA Green Mark, LEED, GBI or QLASSIC claim is made for The NeX by anybody. The national green building index directory returned errors throughout, which is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative.

NOT PUBLISHED, therefore not on this page — with the document that would close each gap

This is the list Louis will go and ask for, and on an industrial product the first three items are the ones that decide whether the building can do the job you are buying it for. FLOOR LOADING PER FLOOR — not published by anybody, and on a nine-storey stacked warehouse it is the most important missing number on this page: the specification sheet. GOODS-LIFT COUNT, CAPACITY AND CAR DIMENSIONS, AND WHETHER ACCESS IS BY RAMP OR BY LIFT ONLY — not published; one source offers “an efficient circulation system”, which is an adjective: the specification sheet and the approved building plan. LOADING-BAY COUNT, DOCK LEVELLERS, POWER SUPPLY PER UNIT, SPRINKLER AND FIRE CLASS, UNITS PER FLOOR AND THE FLOOR PLATE — none published: the specification sheet and the approved plan. THE TYPE SCHEDULE BEYOND ONE TYPE CODE, AND THE PER-TYPE UNIT MIX — not published; without the mix, total saleable area cannot be established and no plot ratio can be computed from published data: the price list and the contract schedules. PER-UNIT CAR AND LORRY BAY ALLOCATION — not published; only a visitor-bay total from one source: the approved plan. THE LOT OR PT NUMBER AND THE MUKIM — not published by any news report: the circular of 24 July 2026, or the issue document of title. WHETHER UNITS RECEIVE STRATA OR INDIVIDUAL TITLES — strata is near certain on a nine-storey stack and nobody actually says so: the title and the contract. THE EXPRESS CONDITION AND CATEGORY OF LAND USE ON THE TITLE, WHETHER STATE CONSENT IS REQUIRED TO TRANSFER AND AT WHAT PREMIUM, ANY RESTRICTION IN INTEREST, AND THE CHARGEE OVER THE DEVELOPMENT — none published: the title and a PTG Selangor search. WHETHER THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND BUILDING PLANS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN APPROVED, THE PLAN-APPROVAL REFERENCE, AND THE APPROVING AUTHORITY BY NAME — submitted 15 July 2026, expected August 2026, and no source confirms either: MBPJ’s own approval. THE CERTIFICATE-OF-COMPLETION PATHWAY, AND THE CONTRACT’S OWN DELIVERY PERIOD, LATE-DELIVERY RATE AND DEFECT-LIABILITY PERIOD — contractual rather than statutory here, and nobody publishes them: the sale and purchase agreement itself, which is also the only place any of them could be enforced. THE IDENTITY AND REGISTRATION NUMBER OF THE DEVELOPING ENTITY, AND THE LAND-OWNING COMPANY’S OWN REGISTRATION NUMBER — neither published anywhere: the circular, or a company search. THE MAIN CONTRACTOR, THE CONSULTANTS, THE FINAL FINANCIER AND THE CHARGE — not yet announced: later filings. THE SERVICE-CHARGE AND SINKING-FUND REGIME, AND WHO WILL MANAGE THE HUB — not published: the contract and the first-year budget. WHETHER THE “RETAIL SPACES” ARE COMMON PROPERTY OR SEPARATELY SALEABLE — not published: the plan and the contract. WHETHER PARCEL B IS PART OF THIS PROJECT — not published: the circular, or a quarterly report. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LISTED PARENT AND THE VENDOR’S PARENT — contradicted between our own files and a published report: the listed parent’s annual report. EVERY DISTANCE EXCEPT ONE MRT FIGURE, AND THE FRONTAGE ROAD ADJUDICATED — not published: drive it with Louis. WHETHER ANY GREEN RATING IS BEING PURSUED — not published: the developer. THE PRICE — deliberately not published here, for the reason set out in the next paragraph: the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. ANY IMAGE — see the final note below: the developer’s own file, supplied directly, with written confirmation of what it shows.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction on his own company’s project materials is absolute, and this paragraph is the only place on this page where these words appear at all. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion and no commission figure is published here, in either language, in the body or in this page’s structured data. No yield, return projection, leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate is published either — and on an INDUSTRIAL asset that is worth stating twice, because return figures are the ordinary currency of industrial marketing. A published rent is the direct input to a forbidden return figure, so no rent is transcribed on this page at all. AND THE LARGEST REFUSAL ON THIS PROJECT IS THE PRICE ITSELF. On a licensed housing development this site publishes the filed statutory selling-price range out of the developer’s own legally filed advertisement, because that is a public statutory record, and labels it as one — always with the line that it is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. HERE NO ADVERTISEMENT WAS EVER FILED, BECAUSE NONE IS REQUIRED OUTSIDE THE ACT. SO THERE IS NO FILED RANGE, AND THERE IS NOTHING OF THAT KIND TO PUBLISH. Two unregulated surfaces do carry unit figures for The NeX, and they contradict each other: a publisher prints a starting figure in June 2026, and an agent listing in October 2026 prints a specific unit figure that sits BELOW it. With no statutory floor to measure either against, there is nothing to reconcile them to — this is a weaker and different thing from a marketing figure undercutting a filed minimum, and both figures are withheld. Where no filed statutory range exists, the house rule is to publish no price at all and to say that is the rule. A SECOND, SUBTLER REFUSAL, AND IT IS WORTH EXPLAINING BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE AN OMISSION. The sources publish TWO separate stock-exchange figures for this development: a gross development value and a gross development cost. Each is individually innocuous. SUBTRACT ONE FROM THE OTHER AND YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT MARGIN — which is a return figure, and a return figure is barred. So this page publishes the gross development value of RM449.43 million and DELIBERATELY WITHHOLDS the cost figure, and will not publish both. One outlet prints the margin outright as a percentage; that figure is not reproduced here. Before recording any PAIR of figures, ask what the pair computes. ON THE ETHNIC-ALLOCATION QUESTION, AND THE SHAPE OF THE ANSWER MATTERS: NONE OF THE THREE POSSIBLE SHAPES WAS FOUND. There is no filed field, because there is no filing in which a field could exist — so unlike several other projects on this site, there is no Bumiputera field here carrying a value that has been withheld. There is no unit quota on any surface read. And there is no lot-title classification either. Three distinct shapes were tested and all three came back empty, and saying that precisely is more useful than silence. WHAT IS PUBLISHED HERE, AND DELIBERATELY: the land consideration and the independent valuation, because they are stock-exchange disclosures of a land transaction rather than unit prices; the gross development value, for the same reason; the reported unit count, storey count, land area, built-up range and specifications, each labelled with the publisher that carried it; and the tenure and land category, because a regulated filing established them. Everything else — the real price of a real unit, and anything attaching to it — comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Ask Louis for both, in writing, and appoint your own solicitor before you sign.

Why this page carries no imagery at all

NO VERIFIABLE IMAGE OF THE NeX IS PUBLISHED BY ANY SOURCE, AND WE WILL NOT PUBLISH ONE WHOSE SUBJECT WE CANNOT ESTABLISH. Twenty candidate images were examined for this project and twenty were refused. Seventeen had their actual pixel dimensions established and not one of them clears the floor this site uses in both dimensions; the other three could not be measured at all. The developer’s own microsite is live and reachable, and it is useless for this purpose: the whole served document is about 2,500 characters, it serves no project asset, and its navigation headings for gallery, unit layout, facilities plan and virtual tour exist and render nothing. There is no sitemap. There is no route to a project filename. AND THE SHARPEST FINDING ON THE IMAGE SIDE IS WORTH A SENTENCE OF ITS OWN, because it is the opposite of what people expect a caption to do. The best-captioned pictures found anywhere for this project sit on a third-party agent listing — and FIVE OF THEM CARRY THE ALT TEXT “EXAMPLE ONLY”. That is the agent disclaiming that his own photographs depict this project. A caption that DENIES the subject is worth more than one that asserts it: it converts a candidate from arguable to refused outright, with no judgement call left to make. The remaining images on that listing top out at roughly 800 pixels on the long edge by the portal’s own design, which is below the floor, so the whole set was refusable from its URLs alone. AND THE CATEGORIES REFUSED MOST FIRMLY, each by name: nothing is borrowed from the group’s other projects, from the licensed residential high-rise on the same name stem, from the separate existing stratified industrial development in this same locality, or from the existing industrial park next door. No locality map, no logo, no icon set and no stock lifestyle photograph has been substituted to fill the space. Fourteen pages on this site now ship with no imagery at all, and the house position is settled: an uncaptioned or wrongly captioned image is worse than no image. Everything this page is for — the register position, the filing, the gaps named with the document that would close each one, the contradictions printed rather than resolved — is text, and none of it needs a picture. When the developer supplies its own files with written confirmation of what each one shows, they go on this page and nothing else about it has to change.

The NeX @ Kota Damansara — the questions an industrial buyer should be asking

The pages that put this one in context

Published 21 October 2026 · last verified 21 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register of licensed developers and registered projects (four name axes, positive control first), all four GreenRE tiers, a Bursa Malaysia related-party circular dated 24 July 2026 as reported by The Edge, EdgeProp and businesstoday, StarProperty, FocusMalaysia, the developer’s own microsite and one third-party agent listing. Marketing information, not an offer. Not a price list, not a quotation. No price is published on this page at all, and the reason is published instead.