What changed on this site, and when

How often is this site updated, and when was the last time?

There is no publishing calendar here and I am not going to invent one. What there is instead is a record. This site is a corpus of 175 Malaysian developments, each one checked against the developer’s own published material and against the statutory advertising and sale permit where one exists. It is re-checked when something forces a re-check, and the whole corpus was re-checked in August 2026. The newest edit to any project page was made on 27 August 2026, and the twenty most recent are listed further down with their dates.

Three things added to this site this week

Listed here so the change is dated and visible, the same way a corrected figure is.

• A buying-costs calculator

  /buying-costs-calculator/ works out transfer stamp duty, loan agreement stamp duty, legal fees on both instruments, and the Johor levy on non-citizens. It carries the change that matters most to the readers of this site: from 1 January 2026 a non-citizen individual or foreign company pays a flat 8% stamp duty on residential property under the new item 32(ab) of the First Schedule to the Stamp Act 1949, inserted by the Finance Act 2025 — not the 1% to 4% sliding scale, and no longer the 4% that applied before. Malaysian permanent residents are outside it. The arithmetic runs in your browser; nothing you type is sent anywhere. The page also states plainly which cost lines it does not cover, rather than filling them with estimates.

• An index by budget

  /price-bands/ sorts the 82 developments that publish a price band of their own onto four budget shelves. 93 of the 175 publish a price at all; 11 of those state it per phase or per block rather than as one band and are left on their own pages; 32 have third-party figures only and 50 publish nothing. Every band was read off the development’s own key-facts table and cross-checked against the classification on published price ranges.

• The first head-to-head comparison

  Twin Tower Residence vs CTC SkyOne puts the two towers at the RTS Bukit Chagar terminus side by side. Neither publishes a price, and the more useful half of that page is the list of what neither of them publishes.

Facts I published, and then corrected

Nobody advertises what they got wrong, which is exactly why this section is the useful part of the page. Each entry gives the figure as it was published, the figure as it stands now, the reason it changed and the document or record the new figure rests on. All ten were found by re-checking my own published numbers against the underlying records, not because anyone complained.

1. 1. Lowest published launch price in Johor

   RM348,653 → RM324,200

   Why it changedRM348,653 came from phase one of Paragon Gateway and was the lowest published figure among the Johor developments the site carried at the time. When the Johor corpus was recounted, Sentrio Residences 2 at Senai came in below it, at RM324,200 to RM405,300 for unit type SN13A. That is RM24,453 under the old floor.

   What it rests onThe developer’s statutory disclosure: developer licence 9294/04-2028/0739(A) and advertising and sale permit 9294-88/06-2029/0452(N)-(S). Corrected in eight places on 17 August 2026.

   Still correct, elsewhereRM348,653 remains right as the floor for the Johor Bahru district itself, and it is printed that way on the published price ranges page. It was only ever wrong as a figure for the whole state.

2. 2. Verified developments in Johor

   56 → 75 (and one page title that had drifted to 64)

   Why it changed56 was a snapshot of what the Johor hub page listed on 5 August 2026, not a count of what had been verified. It then drifted further in the wrong direction: one page title had reached 64 while the body of the same page still said 56. The count was rebuilt from the project fact files by state rather than copied from any page.

   What it rests on75 developments carry Johor as their state. The ten Johor Bahru districts listed on the hub page add up to the same number independently: 17 + 3 + 4 + 7 + 10 + 5 + 9 + 7 + 11 + 2 = 75. Sixteen hub pages, English and Chinese, were brought into line on 17 August 2026, and the number of project links actually on each page was counted and checked against the number printed on it.

   Wording that moved with it“The 56 projects listed on this page” became “the 75 Johor projects verified on this site”, because that page shows a sample, not the whole set, and the old wording pointed the number at the wrong thing.

3. 3. Johor tenure split

   44 freehold → 62 · 6 leasehold → 6 · 6 with no single answer → 7

   Why it changedThe tenure split had been counted against the old 56, so it went stale the moment the corpus reached 75.

   What it rests onThe tenure line in each development’s key facts. Of the 19 developments added, 18 publish a freehold basis and one, Redhill Seri Alam shop offices, publishes a commercial category with no tenure term at all, so it joins the group with no single verifiable answer. 44 + 18 = 62, 6 + 0 = 6, 6 + 1 = 7.

4. 4. Johor developments a foreign buyer cannot complete on

   20 of 56 → at least 32 of 75

   Why it changedThe same stale denominator, and a count that had never been re-run. Before applying the test to 75 developments, it was re-run over the original 56 and returned 19 against a page that already said 19. That match is what made it safe to extend; without it the new number would have been a guess dressed up as a recount.

   What it rests onOnly an explicit negative counts: “no unit qualifies”, “not one unit”, “below the state floor”. Anything conditional or undecided is excluded, including Sanubari phase three marked “restricted”, CTC Skyone marked “cannot be answered yet”, and the Medini exemptions. That is why the pages say at least 32 and never exactly 32. The true figure can only be higher.

5. 5. Johor developments with a documented dual-key layout

   12 → 13, and one development moved between groups

   Why it changedTwo separate faults. The count was stale at 12. Then reading the page rather than the count found the harder one: the first section’s own opening line promises developments “where the developer publishes the dual-key layout with a code and a built-up area”, and The Address @ Maxim Pelangi was sitting in that list with neither. The page’s own FAQ had only ever named eight.

   What changedThe Address moved into the second section, “stated, not documented”. That gives 8 documented plus 5 stated, which is 13, and both opening lines are now literally true. The separate figure of 15 named unit plans did not move, because The Address contributes no unit-type code to it.

   Knock-on correctionThe note explaining why Pine Legacy is excluded said that adding it would make “a thirteenth name”. Once the list itself reached thirteen, Pine Legacy would have been the fourteenth. Corrected on 18 August 2026.

6. 6. Lowest published price in Penang

   RM500,000 → RM715,000

   Why it changedThe RM500,000 was never a selling price. On GEM Residences @ Prai the most prominent figures are RM500,000 and RM1,000,000, which are the Penang minimum purchase thresholds for a foreign buyer on the mainland and on the island. They had been read as prices, and one of them had become the floor of the Penang range.

   What it rests onRecomputing the Penang range with government thresholds excluded gives RM715,000 to RM2,219,000, and one of five Penang developments publishing a price rather than two. Three more had the same class of figure standing in for a price and were corrected in the same pass: Forest City Nigella Park, where the RM500,000 is the special financial zone MM2H threshold, EXCHANGE 106 @ TRX, and D’Evia Residences @ Kwasa Damansara. All four now count as publishing no price at all.

7. 7. Selangor developments publishing a unit price

   25 of 31 → 24 of 31

   Why it changedTwo of the 25 were not unit prices. The RM699,000 in circulation for Templer Residence is the launch price of Richmond, phase one, which has already been handed over. The Arden @ Damansara Avenue publishes about RM1,066 per square foot and no unit total at all.

   A change that was proposed and refusedThe published band on the same page, RM230,000 to RM3,617,900, was flagged for omitting Andara @ Ara Damansara at RM4,000,000. It was not raised. Andara publishes a starting price only, so RM4,000,000 at the top of a band would imply a documented ceiling that nobody has published. The page now gives the band and names Andara’s start price beside it, which is longer to read and true.

8. 8. Developments counted on the home page

   61 → 157

   Why it changed61 was the size of the corpus on the day the home page was written. Rather than search the page for “61”, every number on it was read line by line, which found six places: the hero badge, the trust block, a key fact, a section heading, the call to action, and an FAQ answer that still said “twenty of the Johor developments” where it should have said at least 32 of the 75.

   Deliberately left alone“Ten districts mapped” and “nine flagship zones”. Both were checked and both are right: the district headings on the Johor hub count exactly ten, and nine is the officially published number of flagship zones. Changing a correct number to look consistent with a corrected one is its own kind of error.

9. 9. Two search descriptions that kept the old number after the page had been fixed

   61 and 56, on pages already saying 157 and 75

   Why it changedThis is the failure worth naming. On the English home page and on the Johor–Singapore SEZ hub, the visible text, the heading and the structured data had all been corrected, and the meta description — the line Google prints under the link — still carried the old figure. Both were caught by re-scanning the title and description of all sixteen hub pages, not by looking at the pages themselves.

   What changed after itA number is now treated as uncorrected until it has been checked in four places: the body text, the page title, the meta description and the structured data.

10. 10. Developments with no coordinates, on my own author page

    82 → 77

    Why it changedThe author page explains why many project pages deliberately carry no map pin: I will not publish a coordinate I cannot stand behind, and a plausible-looking pin on the wrong parcel is worse than none. The number attached to that policy was wrong.

    What it rests on80 of the 157 project pages carry coordinates, so 77 do not. The figure was corrected to 77 of 157 in the body, the statistics band, the structured data and the disclaimer. The sourcing policy itself is set out on the about page.

11. 11. The project count, and every figure derived from it

    157 → 175

    Why it changedI compared my list against three competing agency sites and found developments I did not carry. Eighteen were verified against a developer or a named media source and added on 26 August 2026. The count itself is a small thing; what matters is that several published statistics were computed from it and every one of them was wrong the moment the count moved.

    What it rests onThe count is read from the database, not maintained by hand. These derived figures were recomputed rather than adjusted by arithmetic: the Johor lowest published price fell from RM320,450 to RM244,000, because Ceros Residences and D’Secret Garden 2 both publish a start-from figure of RM244,000; the Johor tenure split became 92 verified, 72 freehold, 6 leasehold, 14 not stated; Kuala Lumpur became 40 verified, 17 freehold; the coordinate ratio is now 80 of 175, not 80 of 157, because none of the eighteen publishes coordinates; and the site now carries 70 district tags, not 65.

    A mistake I made in the processFifteen of the eighteen were filed under a district but not under a state. For several hours the Johor archive showed 75 developments and Kuala Lumpur 39, while the project index showed the true totals. The three added last carried their state term from the start. Anyone browsing by state during that window saw an incomplete list. Fixed the same day; the two numbers now agree because both are read from the same taxonomy.

    Still correct, elsewhereThe correction above, dated 19 August, says 80 of 157 carry coordinates. That was accurate on the day it was published and is left standing. This page records what a figure was, not only what it is.

12. 12. The TEDUH register, which this site said it could not read

    “I could not read it” → licence and permit numbers published

    Why it changedThe Raffles 188 page said the National Housing Department’s TEDUH register “renders as a blank JavaScript shell to every automated method I have, so I could not read it”. That is no longer true, and a sentence claiming I could not verify something has to come down the moment I can. The register’s licence and permit search opened on 26 August 2026 and returned records normally.

    What it rests onTwo pages now carry statutory numbers they did not have. Raffles 188: developer Raffles World Sdn Bhd, code 30674, licence 30674/01-2029/0016(N), advertising and sale permit 30674-1/02-2027/0161(N)-(S) — which expires in February 2027, so anyone buying after that date needs to see a renewal. D’Secret Garden 2: developer licence 3390/03-2029/0030(A) under Khoo Soon Lee Realty Sdn Bhd, permit 3390-80/06-2028/0438(N)-(S), with a second permit registered against the same scheme.

    The finding that surprised meD’Secret Garden 2 is registered with the government as “PANGSAPURI KEMPAS INDAH 2”. This site had recorded a dispute on that page: the developer calls the area Setia Tropika, two agent sites called it Kempas. The statutory register sides with the agents. I had filed the page under the developer’s name on the principle that the developer’s own description outranks a listing site. On the location of this particular scheme, that principle produced the wrong answer, and the register outranks both.

    Still outstandingThe remaining project pages that say “permit not published” still say it, because the developer has not published it — which is a different statement from “I could not check”. Matching every marketing name to its registered name is a job in its own right, and I would rather do it slowly and correctly than in bulk.

13. 13. “Permit not published” on the two commercial pages

    “Not published” → “There is unlikely to be one”

    Why it changedRiveria Shoplot and The Bricks @ Seri Austin both carried “advertising permit: not published” in their key facts. On a residential page that phrasing means “chase it”. On these two it was misleading, because there is probably nothing to chase.

    What it rests onThe developer’s licence and the advertising and sale permit are instruments of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, which governs housing accommodation. A development of shop-offices is not housing accommodation, so it is not licensed under that Act and does not appear in the KPKT register — which is what a search on 26 August 2026 confirmed for both schemes.

    Why this is worse news, not betterThe absence is structural, but what disappears with the permit is a set of protections, not a formality: no statutory sale and purchase agreement, no Housing Development Account holding your progress payments, no licensed-developer requirement, and no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Both pages now say so plainly instead of leaving a blank that looked like an oversight.

14. 14. KSL is not one licensed developer

    One brand → at least three licensed entities

    Why it changedThe KSL comparison article told you to check the developer’s own website. There is now a better check. The KPKT register shows KSL-linked schemes held across at least three separate licensed companies: Khoo Soon Lee Realty Sdn Bhd (code 3390, licence 3390/03-2029/0030(A)), KSL Properties Sdn Bhd (10778), and Prosper Plus Industry Sdn Bhd (13457).

    What it rests onKPKT TEDUH, read 26 August 2026. Khoo Soon Lee Realty alone carries around eighty registered project codes. The schemes are registered under statutory Taman and Pangsapuri names, not marketing names.

    What I am careful not to claimNot finding a marketing name in the register does not prove a scheme is unlicensed. It usually means the scheme is registered under a name you have never been shown. The article now asks you to obtain the project code and check it yourself, rather than inviting you to read anything into silence.

15. 15. D’Secret Garden 2 has 1,664 units

    “Not published by KSL” → 1,664

    Why it changedThe developer publishes no unit count for this project. The National Housing Department’s project register does, and the number is large enough to change how you should think about the purchase.

    What it rests onKPKT project register, project code 3390-80, read 26 August 2026: 1,664 units, 2 and 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, Johor Bahru district, permit valid 5 June 2025 to 4 June 2028, project status Lancar — on schedule. The record is at teduh.kpkt.gov.my/semakan-status-kemajuan?kodProjek=3390-80.

    Why the number mattersOn a 1,664-unit scheme, your first competitor when you sell or let is your own building — roughly 1,663 near-identical alternatives, same layouts, same agents. The page now says so, and suggests counting current listings against 1,664 before committing.

    A second thing the register gives youA construction status. The department classifies every licensed scheme as not started, on schedule, late, sick, completed, or permit cancelled. That check takes thirty seconds and no developer website offers it.

16. 16. Mutiara Bestari 4 — four schemes share the registered name

    Nothing published → a record I deliberately did not attribute

    Why it changedKSL publishes no land size, built-up, price or permit for this project. The register has all of it — but four separate schemes are registered as “TAMAN MUTIARA BESTARI” under codes 3390-86, 3390-66, 3390-61 and 3390-59, and the register does not use phase numbers.

    What I did instead of guessingThe page publishes the record for 3390-86 — the newest, permit issued August 2026: 176 units, 236–364 m² (about 2,540–3,918 sq ft), 4 bed 4 bath, status not started — labelled as belonging to that code and not to the marketing name. It then tells you to ask the salesperson for the project code, which is one question and settles it.

    Why I am not calling it a match“Most likely” is not “is”. If I attached those figures to the wrong phase, a reader would calculate a price per square foot on a house that is not the one they are buying. The cost of being wrong here is higher than the cost of asking one more question.

17. 17. A finding in a developer’s favour

    Not previously published

    Why it is hereI filtered Khoo Soon Lee Realty’s roughly seventy registered schemes by each of the register’s adverse statuses on 26 August 2026. Sick: none. Late: none. Permit cancelled: none. Everything sits in not started, on schedule, or completed.

    Why that belongs on a page of correctionsBecause this site publishes what it finds, and publishing only the awkward findings about a developer while quietly skipping a clean one would be its own kind of dishonesty. It also puts the KSL listing-gap article in proportion: a documentation gap is not a solvency signal, and on the measure that does track solvency this portfolio is clean.

18. 18. Fraser Heights — “permit not published” replaced by three permit numbers

    Not published on the township website → 20212-2, 20212-3 and 20212-4

    Why it changedSearching the register by licensed company rather than by marketing name found the file. The registered scheme name is Fraser Heights (Taman Puncak Tropicana) under Tropicana GP Views Sdn Bhd (20212), and the development is not one project but three separately permitted phases: 223, 159 and 136 units.

    How I know it is the same developmentFour independent fields agree: the registered name contains “Fraser Heights” verbatim, the three phases sum to 518 units — exactly the figure this site had published from the launch reports — all three are 4 bed / 3 bath, and the built-up band of 1,485–2,099 sq ft brackets the reported 1,500–1,895 sq ft. One field agreeing is a coincidence. Four is not.

    A conflict I printed rather than settledThe register records the district for all three phases as Pontian. Tropicana markets the township as Gelang Patah, and this site has filed it that way since the page was built. Both are now on the page, side by side. I do not have a document that settles it, and the difference decides which land office handles a state consent application and which council issues the assessment bill.

    The buyer-facing consequenceThe permit for phase 20212-2 expires 29 December 2026. That is now stated on the page, with the instruction to ask for renewal documents before paying anything after that date.

19. 19. BEE — the built-up areas the developer never published, and a correction to my own framing

    Built-up areas: not published → 1,787–2,325 and 3,369–3,778 sq ft

    What the register addedFaire Development publishes land dimensions and nothing else — no price, no built-up, no permit. The register under Faire Development Sdn Bhd (20183) publishes two permits, both valid to 1 June 2028, with unit counts, built-up ranges and bedroom counts. 325 + 178 = 503, which is exactly the total this site had carried on the authority of a single newspaper report. An independent source with no reason to agree with The Star agrees with it to the digit.

    Where I was too confidentThis page previously said the two agency listings — “Faire BEE Terrace” and “BEE Cluster” — were an artefact of how portals index one development. The register shows a real split underneath that. There genuinely are two separately permitted schemes, and the line falls almost exactly where the agents drew it: 325 terrace homes at 4 bed / 4 bath under one permit, 178 cluster and semi-detached homes at 6 bed / 7 bath under the other. One development on the ground, two permits on paper — and the instrument protecting your purchase is one of the two. The page now says so.

    Also worth stating“BEE” does not appear anywhere in the government record. The statutory name is Taman Nusa Permata. Two further schemes under the same licence, Laman Permata and Taman Cempaka Putih, are recorded as completed with CCC, and nothing under this licence carries an adverse status — a favourable finding about a developer this site has criticised on disclosure, published for that reason.

20. 20. Riveria Garden — permits found, and 2,160 apartments the pages had not mentioned

    No permit information → three permits, plus a township density disclosure

    The matchNeither “Riveria Garden” nor “Aluna” nor “Elora” appears in the register. The statutory name is Bandar Wawari, under Wawari Sdn Bhd (31063). Aluna is two permits of 265 units each — 530 in total, matching the page exactly — at 4 bed / 4 bath and a built-up band starting at 2,217 sq ft against the developer’s published 2,219 sq ft. Elora 2A is one permit of 230 units, which is the page’s 228 cluster plus 2 semi-detached, with a built-up band of 2,465–2,594 sq ft bracketing the developer’s 2,470 and 2,592 sq ft figures.

    What neither page had told youThe same licence carries two more permitted schemes, both strata on commercial title: Residensi Komersial Pinggiran Sungai, 1,022 and 1,138 units. That is 2,160 apartments permitted inside a township being sold as landed housing, bringing the total permitted here to 2,920 homes across a master plan of 10–15 phases.

    Why it belongs on the landed pagesNot because it is bad — density is what makes a township work. Because it changes the road traffic, because “Komersial” means those residents pay commercial utility and assessment rates while an individual-title landed owner does not, and because 2,160 apartments do not compete for your buyer but do compete for your tenant. Both pages now carry the figures and the question to ask: where on the 1,026 acres do those parcels sit.

21. 21. Ascent Park — the permit-mismatch warning, now backed by the full file

    “That permit block names another project” → the named company’s entire register file, and it does not contain Ascent Park

    What changedLinbaq’s Ascent Park page carries a statutory permit block naming Far East Nusajaya Sdn Bhd. I have now read that company’s complete file: licence 30966 has exactly two registered schemes, Residensi Sari Hijau I (30966-1) and II (30966-2), both recorded as on schedule. Ascent Park is not one of them. Those permit numbers cannot apply to this development under any reading.

    Something I found and refused to publish as a findingSearching the register for Linbaq as a licensed developer returns nothing. That is not evidence of anything and the page says so explicitly. Malaysian schemes register under a project company and a statutory taman name, and the brand on the hoarding usually appears nowhere. On this same site “Fraser Heights” is in the register verbatim while “BEE” does not appear at all — and BEE is fully permitted. “I cannot find the marketing name” means I do not have the right search key. Publishing an absence as though it were a finding would be the worst thing this site could do.

    What the page asks for insteadThe licensed developer entity and the KPKT project code, per component — Ascent Park has eight, and residential and commercial parcels carry different legal consequences. If a code comes back and checks out, that is the outcome the section is designed to produce.

22. 22. “Advertising permit: not published” is gone from 53 developments — and the government publishes more than the permit number

    Permit not published → permit number, permitted price band, unit count and construction progress on 53 developments

    What changedThe National Housing Department’s project register is a JavaScript application, and this site previously reported that its contents could not be read reliably. They can. Behind the search screen the register serves structured data, and it carries substantially more than the permit block a developer prints in an advertisement: for each project code it publishes the registered scheme name, the licensed developer company, the district, the advertising permit number and its expiry date, the total unit count, the built-up range, bedroom and bathroom counts, the price band the developer is permitted to sell within, the certified construction progress as a percentage, and the project status.

    What is now on the siteThere is now also one page that teaches the check itself: the seven status words in plain English, why searching by marketing name usually fails, and the register status of every development on this site in a single table. All 175 developments — 350 pages, English and Chinese — now carry a register section with those fields, the date they were read, and the exact URL to pull the same record yourself. Before today, six did. Every one of the rest previously either said the permit was not published or said nothing about it at all.

    Where a project could not be matched, the search itself is publishedNot every project could be placed in the register, and on those pages I have printed my working instead of leaving a gap: the exact company name and project name I searched, the near-misses I found, and why I rejected each one. Failing to find a marketing name in the register is not evidence that a development is unlicensed — on this site “Fraser Heights” appears in the register word for word while “BEE” appears nowhere at all, and BEE has two entirely valid permits. Publishing “not found” as though it were a finding would be the worst thing this website could do, so those pages say plainly what was searched, what was rejected, and the one question to put to the seller in writing.

    Three categories of page carry an explanation rather than a tableIndustrial, office and shop-office projects have no housing permit because the Housing Development Act applies to housing accommodation only — and those pages now set out exactly which statutory protections a commercial buyer does not get, and what to negotiate into the contract instead. Sabah projects are not in the federal register at all, because housing licensing in Sabah is state legislation — those pages explain the jurisdictional boundary and where to verify instead.

    The key that unlocked it was already on this siteMatching a marketing name to a government record by guessing is the one thing this site refuses to do, and marketing names almost never appear in the register. The right key is the licensed company name — and it turned out that 153 of the 175 project pages already printed one, in the developer section, in a disclaimer, or in a note about which entity signs the sale and purchase agreement. Searching the register by company rather than by project name, then confirming each hit against the unit count and the coordinates this site had already verified, is what produced the matches. On several, the register’s coordinate landed within ten metres of ours and the unit count agreed to the digit.

    The findings a buyer would not otherwise seeAetas Seputeh is recorded Lewat — late. Country Garden Danga Bay’s fifth phase and Queens Residences Q3’s earlier phase both carry Permit Telah Dibatalkan — permit cancelled. Skyline One Sentosa and Divine KLCC are both recorded at 0.00% construction progress. And permits at Adison, The Wyn Residences, The Atera, Vista Lavender, Noordinz Suites and one Sanubari phase all expire within four months of today — each page now says so, and says what to ask for.

    The rejections are published tooFive developments returned a register hit under a similar name that is not the same project, and each of those pages now prints the rejected record and the reason: Ethos (a cancelled-permit scheme by a different developer — the most important one not to get wrong), Rosewood, Botanika, The Address and Levia. Each also states plainly that failing to find a marketing name in the register is not evidence that a development is unlicensed — it usually means the statutory name is different.

    One thing this does not changeThe classification on published price ranges counts what developers publish. A permitted band on a government register is not a developer’s published price, so that count is unchanged. But it does mean a documented price boundary now exists for many developments this site classifies as publishing nothing — and where I have it, it is on the project page.

A correction I was asked to make, and did not

Twenty recently edited project pages

These are twenty developments taken from the site’s modification timestamps, read on 27 August 2026. Dates are UTC and are the stored modification timestamps, not publication dates. Every development has an English page and a Chinese page, and both are linked.

1. Riveria Garden @ Wawari — Elora Cluster & Semi-D Homes2026-08-27Iskandar Puteri · Johor中文
2. Riveria Garden @ Wawari — Aluna 2-Storey Terrace Homes2026-08-27Iskandar Puteri · Johor中文
3. Ascent Park @ Iskandar Puteri2026-08-27Iskandar Puteri · Johor中文
4. BEE @ Taman Nusa Permata, Iskandar Puteri2026-08-27Taman Nusa Permata · Johor中文
5. Fraser Heights @ Tropicana Uplands2026-08-27Gelang Patah · Johor中文
6. Mutiara Bestari 4 @ Mutiara Rini, Skudai2026-08-27Skudai · Johor中文
7. D’Secret Garden 2 @ Setia Tropika2026-08-27Setia Tropika · Johor中文
8. The Bricks @ Seri Austin2026-08-26Seri Austin · Johor中文
9. Riveria Shoplot @ Iskandar Puteri2026-08-26Iskandar Puteri · Johor中文
10. Raffles 1882026-08-26Ipoh · Perak中文
11. Botanika @ Tebrau Bay (Subsales)2026-08-26Permas Jaya · Johor中文
12. Parc Regency @ Plentong2026-08-26Plentong · Johor中文
13. Oaka Residences @ Bukit Jalil2026-08-26Bukit Jalil · Kuala Lumpur中文
14. Suria Hills @ Iskandar Puteri2026-08-26Iskandar Puteri · Johor中文
15. Richmond JBCC @ Johor Bahru City Centre2026-08-26Johor Bahru · Johor中文
16. Rosewood @ Iskandar Puteri2026-08-26Iskandar Puteri · Johor中文
17. Aurora 5 @ Ulu Tiram2026-08-26Ulu Tiram · Johor中文
18. KSL Austin Legacy @ Austin2026-08-26Johor Bahru · Johor中文
19. KSL Lakeview @ Ponderosa2026-08-26Ponderosa · Johor中文
20. Ethos @ Iskandar Puteri2026-08-26Iskandar Puteri · Johor中文

An edit here can mean a corrected figure, a new phase, a renewed permit, added photographs or a rewritten section. It does not by itself mean the price moved. For the record of who has published a price and who has published nothing, see the published price ranges, and for the full list of developments see all projects.

Why I publish my own corrections instead of quietly fixing them

Because a site that never records a change is either not being checked, or is being changed without telling you. Neither is a good reason to trust a number on it. Publishing the corrections costs me the appearance of never being wrong and buys something more useful: you can see exactly how a figure on this site is arrived at, and what happens to it when it turns out not to hold.

The corrections on this page are taken from the site’s own change records, and the dates given are the dates each change was published. The twenty project pages listed above are read from the modification timestamps stored in the database and are shown in UTC. Totals referred to on this page: 175 developments verified one by one, 92 of them in Johor, 73 district archives with editorial content in English and Chinese. Last verified 2026-08-27. This page is information, not legal, tax or financial advice.