twentyfive7 @ Kota Kemuning — Telok Panglima Garang, Daerah Kuala Langat, Selangor: KPKT licence 19085, seven registered phases, 2,325 licensed homes, and the fact no portal prints — “twentyfive7” is the registered name of nothing

Six things about twentyfive7 that are true, filed, and published nowhere else

Each card below is a finding from the public register or the filed advertisement documents, not a selling point. Two of the six run against the developer’s own marketing, and two run in the buyer’s favour. All four are printed here the same way.

The seven phases as a buyer meets them — marketed name, registered name, register code

No floor plan, site plan, masterplan graphic or location map exists for this township from any source, so every panel below is deliberately without an image rather than filled with a render. Each card carries the register code, because the registered names do not distinguish the phases. What is filed is printed; what is not filed is marked NOT FILED.

Not one of the seven phases has a published floor plan, site plan or masterplan graphic, from the developer or from anybody else, and Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in any of the six filed brochures — which is why this page carries no density figure and no plan image. Filed statutory Unit Selling Price ranges and public registry bands only. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. The price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery are the only authoritative source for what any individual unit costs.

Developer imagery — two precincts out of seven, and the five with none

What these images are, and what they are not. Nothing published for this township can reach the confirmed grade. The developer’s site runs on a JavaScript framework rather than a content management system with a public media library: there is no CMS title and no CMS date to confirm a subject against, and the image filenames carry hashed suffixes so they cannot be guessed. The ceiling is caption-published, and every caption above says so. One image bucket serves every Gamuda Land development in Malaysia and Australia — there is no per-township folder at all, which was proved on this exact host on an earlier job, where a file belonging to one township was found serving on another township’s page. So page placement is not a project identifier here and this page refuses it: every image above was selected because its own filename names the precinct, and every caption names which precinct it belongs to. Three township product thumbnails whose filenames DO name their precincts were still refused, because their alt text is the useless string thumb project; so were all “Similar Developments” cards and all the generic captioned feature tiles, which are reused across developments — one of them appears on the Levane page and The Clove Signature page both. And the gap matters more than the pictures: these ten images cover TWO of the seven registered phases. Phase 1 (19085-1), The Amber Residence (-2), Lucent (-3), Luxura (-4) and Quayside Plaza (-6) have NO imagery on this page at all, and Quayside Plaza is image-blocked entirely — its only identified asset carries the thumb project alt and is refused. No render above stands for the township, and none of them depicts any phase other than the one its caption names. No location map, no masterplan graphic, no site plan and no floor plan exists for any phase.

Where twentyfive7 actually is, and why the marketing address is a locality borrow

The filed project address is Lot 43495, Persiaran Oleander, 42500 Telok Panglima Garang, Selangor, and the district reads Daerah Kuala Langat on all seven register records. Every marketing surface calls this Kota Kemuning. The developer’s own distance table refutes its own address line — it puts Kota Kemuning Lakeside Park 7.0 km away and Bukit Kemuning Golf and Country Resort 7.4 km away. A development 7 km from Kota Kemuning’s own lake park is not in Kota Kemuning — which is exactly what the developer says elsewhere (“South of Kota Kemuning”; the COO told The Edge it is “located next to Kota Kemuning”) and exactly what the filings say. The marketing name is a locality borrow and the developer’s own table is the proof. Both are printed here.

Registered as Gamuda Kemuning (five times), Quayside Plaza and Gamuda Kemuning 25.7 — KPKT projects 19085-1 to 19085-7

Printed as the register and the filed advertisement documents print it, including the parts that disagree with each other. Read on 13 October 2026 from the public KPKT TEDUH register records for developer 19085 and projects 19085-1 through 19085-7, and from the six filed HIMS advertisement documents (19085-1 has none). There is no developer statutory block to compare against: gamudaland.com.my publishes no licence number, no permit number, no statutory panel and no permit page anywhere on the site. So every statutory particular on this page comes from the register and the filings, and nothing on this page is taken from a developer statutory panel — because there is none to take it from.

Read 13 October 2026 from teduh.kpkt.gov.my (developer 19085; projects 19085-1 to 19085-7; 19085-8 returns a client error) and from the filed advertisement documents on hims.kpkt.gov.my for -2 to -7. Register percentages and statuses move. Re-check before you sign anything.

The figures above are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price ranges and the public government registry bands, published here because they are a legally filed sale price range and a public record. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The authoritative figure for any individual unit is the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery.

Scope: this is one township page, and two developments it is NOT

This page covers all seven registered phases of licence 19085, and nothing else. First: Broadleaf — Kota Kemuning is a separate development by a different developer and not one of its figures appears anywhere on this page. It belongs to BCB Development Sdn Bhd, developer code 13053, licence 13053/04-2028/0551(A), at the Home Tree township in Daerah Klang, and both of its registered phases are already Siap Dengan CCC — completed. It shares nothing with twentyfive7 but the words “Kota Kemuning” in an address line, and it needs its own page and its own research. Second: Kota Kemuning proper is a different licensee again — Hicom-Gamuda Development Sdn Bhd, code 6784, 61 project records, 44 of them carrying the words Kota Kemuning, all completed decades ago. Nothing in licence 6784 is twentyfive7 and nothing in licence 19085 is Kota Kemuning proper. They are two Gamuda-named licensees one word apart in the township name and about 7 km apart on the ground, and keeping them separate is the single most useful thing a client can be told about this address. Figures from two further Gamuda licensees — Bandar Serai Development Sdn Bhd (code 19124) and Gamuda Land (Botanic) Sdn Bhd — are also deliberately absent, including their delivery records, their awards and their green certifications.

Why this page is tagged landed and new launch, and deliberately NOT commercial

Taxonomy, stated rather than left to be guessed. This page is filed under Landed and New Launch, under Selangor and Telok Panglima Garang, and under the developer brand Gamuda Land. Landed is right even though the title is strata: 1,264 of the 2,325 licensed homes are houses — terraced, cluster and semi-detached — and condominium or serviced apartment would misdescribe them, while the fact that the title is strata title is stated throughout the page because it is unusual and because it is what admits a foreign buyer. New launch is right because two phases are selling: The Clove Signature (19085-7) is open, and Quayside Plaza (19085-6) is still being marketed at 73.54% built. Commercial was considered and declined, and the reason is the point: Quayside Mall, Quayside Square and the shop and business-space units carry no KPKT registration, no licence, no permit and no filed advertisement at all, so tagging a commercial component that no filing supports would overstate what is actually on offer here. Six earlier pages in this series reached the same conclusion on the same reasoning. The commercial content is described in full in the project panel above — described, not tagged.

Foreign buyers: title, zone, price and consent — four separate questions, and three different answers

On title the answer here is favourable, and that is unusual for a landed scheme. All seven phases are filed Schedule H and every permit from 19085-2 onward carries the -(S) tail, so the landed homes are on strata title. Selangor permits foreign purchase of strata and landed-strata only, and standard individual-title landed is not permitted — the state guide citing Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014, iProperty, and IQI’s own land guide at iqiglobal.com/blog/buying-land-in-malaysia-for-foreigners/ all carry the same restriction. So where a freehold individual-title landed scheme bars a foreign buyer outright, this township admits one. On the zone, a correction: Daerah Kuala Langat is Selangor ZONE 2, not Zone 1. Zone 1 (Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang, Klang) and Zone 2 (Kuala Selangor, Kuala Langat) both carry a floor of RM2,000,000; Zone 3 (Hulu Selangor, Sabak Bernam) is RM1,000,000. The figure is the same but the route is different, and a client told “Zone 1” and then checking the circular will not find Kuala Langat there. It remains double the Kuala Lumpur figure of RM1,000,000 with EPU consent. PTG Selangor publishes no reachable circular, so confirm with PTGS before committing. On price, the detail is in the comparison in the FAQ below; the short form is that The Clove Signature clears for 252 of its 300 homes and fails for 48, Quayside Plaza clears for 3 of 465, The Amber Residence for none of its 596, and 604 of the 2,325 licensed units straddle the floor and are undeterminable because no per-unit price is filed anywhere. And on consent, a separate condition sits on top of all of that: a Sekatan Kepentingan is filed on all six filings, forbidding transfer, lease or charge without State Authority consent. That applies regardless of price and regardless of the strata finding. On 19085-1 the restriction status is simply UNKNOWN, because no advertisement was ever filed for it — ask for a title search rather than reading across from its siblings. One marketing-only condition is worth flagging honestly: the state guidance additionally conditions landed-strata on the scheme being gated and guarded. The developer publishes “24-hour multi-tiered security” on one precinct page and no filing on this licence contains any security item at all, so treat that condition as probably met on marketing evidence only.

The build percentages, and how to read them

A percentage built in the register is a payment-stage figure, not a promise about a handover date. On 19085-6 the three component rows read 94.17% (3 units), 92.30% (25 units) and 73.54% (437 units), and the register’s overall status on that record is Lewat — late. The arithmetic behind the flag, stated without prediction: 33 of the 36-month delivery period have elapsed since the first sale and purchase agreement on 31 January 2024, against 73.54% built on the main component, with vacant possession due 31 January 2027 and no approved extension on the record. The honest reading is that both of those are true at once and neither this page nor any source can tell a buyer which way it resolves. On 19085-7 the rows read 13.23% to 49.58% against a governing date of 25 January 2029, which is early in a 36-month programme and unremarkable. These figures move. Re-read the register at the date you sign.

Not published, therefore not on this page

Seventeen things a buyer would reasonably ask about this township, and no source answers them. 1. No parcel area for any phase — Keluasan Tanah is not printed in any of the six filed brochures, so no density, no plot ratio and no net-to-gross figure is publishable, and this page publishes none. 2. No car park allocation in any filing on this licence — the claim “up to 5 carparks with direct unit access” has no statutory support anywhere. 3. No lot or PT number for any phase; the only lot number in circulation, Lot 43495, is the sales gallery’s. 4. No mukim on any of the seven records. 5. No township gross development value from any source — the sums on this page are this page’s own, labelled as such. 6. No built-up schedule for 19085-1, -3 or -5; no per-type unit split for Quayside Plaza’s 437-unit group or for The Amber Residence’s built-up types; and no labelled built-up for The Clove Signature. 7. No landowner, vendor or joint-venture partner named anywhere. 8. No source maps any marketing precinct name to any register code — the GreenRE register is the only public document that bridges two of them, which is why the Lucent mapping on this page is labelled probable. 9. 19085-1 has no filed advertisement, ever, so tenure, lease expiry, plan reference, restriction in interest, permit particulars and built-ups are unavailable for 279 homes. 10. No current-generation filed advertisement exists for 19085-3. 11. Which of The Clove Signature’s 48 sub-floor units, and which of the 604 straddling units township-wide, clear the RM2,000,000 floor — undeterminable, because no per-unit price is filed. 12. What explains the RM250,000 and RM232,500 entries, given that the affordable-component hypothesis tests negative. 13. No facilities schedule by level for either high-rise phase, and no facilities list at all in any filing — the developer publishes feature words, not a schedule. 14. No distance to any rail station and no highway distance, from anybody. 15. No subsidiary shareholding percentage for the licensee — the group’s latest annual report file would not load. 16. No QLASSIC workmanship score for any phase. 17. The register’s own permit-history table was not reachable for this developer, so unpermitted intervals were NOT CHECKED — recorded as unchecked rather than as a clean result. Louis will ask the developer for every one of these in writing. What comes back will be added here with its date.

Superlatives this page quotes and does not adopt

The developer’s own words, attributed, with what supports them. “Malaysia’s First New Typology Design” (The Clove Signature) — no definition, no awarding body, no register entry and no comparator exists, so it is unsupportable as written and is carried here only as the developer’s claim. “Final Phase of Lakefront Living” (The Clove Signature) — no source states how many lakefront phases there are, and two other precincts are also marketed as lakefront, so this too is carried as a claim. “The first and largest mall in Kota Kemuning” (Quayside Mall) — neither “first” nor “largest” is testable from any published figure, and the premise is wrong, because the township is not in Kota Kemuning on the developer’s own distance table. “Newly Launched” (Quayside Plaza) — refuted by the developer’s own filing and by the national register, which flags that scheme late at 73.54% built. “Connected To 5 Major Highways” against “4 Major highways” on the same website, with no highway named and no distance given — unsupported either way. And one claim the developer did NOT make, which is worth the credit: there is no low-density claim anywhere on any of its pages — which is just as well, since no density figure can be computed for any phase of this township.

What this page does not publish, and why

This agency has one absolute compliance instruction and this page applies it literally. No discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion and no commission information appears anywhere on this page, from any source, whatever its provenance — and those five terms appear exactly once each on this page, here in this sentence, and nowhere else. There is one deliberate, named exception, and it is the term Bumiputera, which appears exactly twice on this page: once here, and once in the answer block near the top of this page, in the cell whose heading names that allocation field. In that cell the page records ONLY that the filed advertisement particulars contain such a field and that the field carries a value, and it publishes no value for it. Those are the only two places the term appears, and there is no third. What that means in practice. The filed statutory Unit Selling Price bands and the public KPKT TEDUH register bands ARE published here, because they are the legally filed sale and purchase price ranges and a public government record — and each is labelled on this page as what it is: not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. What is withheld, and what is recorded instead. The developer’s own page for The Clove Signature carries an entry figure that sits BELOW the filed statutory minimum of RM1,922,800 for 19085-7. Neither that figure nor the size of the gap appears anywhere on this page, because printing a gap beside a filed minimum would reconstruct the withheld figure exactly. Recorded here is only that the discrepancy exists, and how many independent publishers carry it — and the carrier count is the sharper finding. The count is ONE, and that one carrier is NOT independent of the development at all: it is the developer itself. No portal and no press report was found repeating it. Counting rule applied, so that the figure one is honest: the Edge-group domains and its content API count as one publisher; PropertyGuru and iProperty count as one; the two Star-group domains count as one. A developer carrying a figure below its own filed statutory minimum, with no independent publisher repeating it, is a sharper finding than a wide discrepancy across many sources would be, and it is stated as such. A second instance is recorded as CONDITIONAL and not asserted: the Lucent Residence page prints two different entry figures in two places on one page, and both sit below 19085-3’s filed minimum and below its registry minimum — but the Lucent to 19085-3 mapping is only probable, so the finding is conditional on a mapping this page does not claim to have closed. Two cases run the other way and are credited: Levane’s entry figure sits ABOVE its filed minimum, and Quayside Plaza’s sits well above its filed RM250,000. That is the normal, honest case and it deserves naming as much as the other. And the test that ran backwards is reported negative rather than left hanging: there is no affordable-unit type-code suffix pair anywhere on this licence, no duplicated built-up at two prices, no register flag for a state affordable scheme, and no source mentioning one — so the low RM250,000 and RM232,500 entries are recorded as an unexplained anomaly and not explained away as an affordable allocation. Where you get a real figure: the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Ask Louis and he will walk you through the filed schedule line by line.

How this page was built, and its limits

Everything above is either traced to a named published source or marked as not published. The spine is the public KPKT TEDUH register records for developer 19085 and projects 19085-1 through 19085-7, read on 13 October 2026, and the six filed HIMS advertisement documents. Three limits are worth stating plainly. First, 19085-1 has no filed advertisement at all, so a seventh of the township’s homes sit behind a blank. Second, the only filed advertisement reachable for 19085-3 is a full generation behind that record’s own permit, which is why its price band disagrees with the register on every row — and no current-generation document for it could be reached. Third, the green-certification register truncates on three of its four tiers, so where this page says there is no further entry it means no further entry in the reachable portion, never a clean negative; the one genuinely clean negative is the top tier, which closed completely with no entry for this licensee. One further honest limitation on the green side: the certification-entry list that yielded Quayside Plaza’s assessment-tool code covers only 10 October 2014 to 1 July 2025 and therefore misses later rows in its own tier table. And the national green-building directory for the other certification body returns server errors throughout, so its absence is inconclusive and is never read as a negative. Published 13 October 2026. Re-verify every figure against the filed advertisement particulars before you sign.

twentyfive7 @ Kota Kemuning — the filed answers

Nearby, and by the same brand — with the differences stated, not blurred

Published 13 October 2026 · last verified 13 October 2026. Sources: the public KPKT TEDUH register developer record for code 19085 and project records 19085-1 through 19085-7; the six filed HIMS advertisement documents for 19085-2 to 19085-7 (19085-1 has none); the GreenRE certification register across all four tiers plus one certification-entry list; the developer’s own township, precinct and accolades pages; a public construction record for the Quayside Plaza commercial component; and the named press, portal and foreign-ownership sources cited above, including IQI’s own land guide. · Marketing information, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the filed advertisement particulars and the Schedule H sale and purchase agreement before you commit.