An estate with enough workers must build and maintain a hospital. A non-estate camp housing the same number must ensure they receive the necessary medical assistance, with nothing prescribing what that looks like. The same Act, two different kinds of duty, and most employers are under the second one.
Two Regimes in One Act
The Employees’ Minimum Standards of Housing, Accommodations and Amenities Act 1990 reads as though two different drafting philosophies were stapled together, because they were. Part III dates from the plantation era and prescribes facilities. Part IIIA, inserted by the 2019 amendment to deal with the industrial workforce, prescribes outcomes.
Part III, covering health, hospital, medical treatment and sanitation on estates, is specific in a way that modern legislation rarely is. It requires the employer to construct and maintain an estate hospital, with provision for group estate hospitals. It deals with payment and recovery of hospital expenses, with sick workers admitted to a government hospital, and with transportation of sick workers to hospital. It provides separately for medical treatment on an estate where no hospital is maintained. It imposes duties to report suspected cases of infectious disease and to segregate a worker suffering from one, gives the Medical Officer of Health power to order immunization, and requires weekly inspection of workers’ housing.
Part IIIA, which applies to employees employed otherwise than to work in an estate, takes a different approach entirely. The medical content sits in two places. Under the safety and health duties, the employer or centralized accommodation provider must ensure that employees receive the necessary medical assistance, and must take preventive measures to contain the spread of infectious diseases as ordered by the Medical Officer of Health, arranging immunization at its own expense where the Medical Officer of Health so orders. Separately, the person in charge of accommodation must ensure an employee is taken to a clinic or hospital if the employee complains about their health, and must keep a record of complaints.
The estate provisions tell an employer what to build. The accommodation provisions tell an employer what to achieve. Only one of those can be satisfied by writing a cheque at the start.
The territorial point belongs here too, because it is often missed. The Act’s application is to Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territory of Labuan. Operations in Sabah and Sarawak sit outside it, which matters for anyone running offshore support or fabrication work in East Malaysia and assuming a single national framework.
What Is Actually Prescribed, and What Is Not
Having established that the duty is outcome-based, the next question is whether anything fills in the detail. It does not.
A first aid kit. The Accommodation and Centralized Accommodation Regulations 2020 list one first aid kit among the minimum requirements for both non-dormitory and dormitory accommodation. That is the only medical item in the Schedule.
No sick room. The regulations contain no requirement for a sick bay, a treatment room, a clinic or any dedicated space for an unwell worker.
No isolation facility. Neither the regulations nor the provisions inserted in 2019 prescribe an isolation or quarantine room, despite the infectious disease duty sitting in the same Part.
No staffing. Nothing prescribes a trained first aider, a medic, a visiting doctor or any particular competence in the person who will decide whether a worker goes to a clinic.
No equipment list. The content of the first aid kit, the oxygen, the stretcher, the thermometer, none of it is specified in the accommodation standards.
What that leaves: an enforceable duty to ensure necessary medical assistance and to act on a health complaint, discharged through arrangements the employer designs and no inspector can check against a list.
This cuts both ways, and it is worth being honest about the favourable half. An outcome duty gives an employer latitude to design something appropriate: a retainer with a nearby clinic may serve a camp far better than an unstaffed sick room. The problem is not the latitude. It is that latitude plus no checklist produces nothing at all unless somebody deliberately designs it.
The Infectious Disease Duty Without a Room to Use
The gap that shows up first in practice is the one between the infectious disease obligation and the physical provision available to meet it.
Part IIIA requires preventive measures to contain spread, as ordered by the Medical Officer of Health. Part III, on estates, goes further and imposes a duty to segregate a worker suffering from an infectious disease. Neither comes with a prescribed space, and dormitory accommodation at a minimum sleeping area of three square metres per employee offers nowhere obvious to segregate anyone.
A duty to contain spread, in a building designed to the minimum sleeping area, with no room set aside. The arithmetic of that was visible before 2020 and has not changed since.
The planning consequence is that the capability has to be arranged rather than assumed. Where a Medical Officer of Health issues a direction, the employer is complying with it using whatever space and arrangements already exist, and the time to work out what those are is not the morning the direction arrives. A room that can be freed, an arrangement with a facility that can take people, a plan for how meals and sanitation work for someone separated from the main block: none of it is prescribed, all of it is needed.
Designing the Provision
Since the standard is an outcome, the defensible position is a documented arrangement that plainly achieves it.
The fourth item is the one that converts good practice into a defence. The Act requires the person in charge to keep a record of complaints, and that record is simultaneously the only contemporaneous evidence that a complaint was received and acted on. A camp with no complaints log has no way to show it discharged the duty, however well it actually behaved.
The last item is routinely the weakest. A multilingual workforce, a person in charge who is not always on site, and no stated route for raising a health concern means complaints go unmade rather than unanswered, which satisfies nobody and protects no one.
Worth adding one caution. Part IIIA’s provisions as described here derive from the 2019 amendment, and anyone relying on the precise wording should read the Act as currently in force and take proper advice, since this is general information rather than legal advice. The structural point is not in doubt: for a non-estate camp the medical duty is an outcome with no prescribed facility behind it. Our workforce accommodation work treats that as something to design and document rather than something the certificate takes care of.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a workers’ camp have to provide a sick bay or clinic?
Not as a prescribed facility, for non-estate accommodation. The Accommodation and Centralized Accommodation Regulations 2020 list one first aid kit as the only medical item, with no sick room, treatment room, clinic, isolation space or staffing requirement. The duty instead is to ensure employees receive the necessary medical assistance and, for the person in charge of accommodation, to ensure an employee is taken to a clinic or hospital if they complain about their health.
Why do estates have different medical requirements?
Because Part III of the Act, which applies to estates, prescribes facilities directly: construction and maintenance of an estate hospital with provision for group hospitals, recovery of hospital expenses, treatment where no hospital is maintained, transport of sick workers to hospital, reporting and segregation of infectious disease, immunization orders by the Medical Officer of Health, and weekly inspection of housing. Part IIIA, covering employees not employed to work in an estate, sets duties rather than facilities.
What are the infectious disease obligations for a camp?
Under the safety and health duties in Part IIIA, the employer or centralized accommodation provider must take preventive measures to contain the spread of infectious diseases as ordered by the Medical Officer of Health, and must arrange immunization at its own expense where the Medical Officer of Health so orders. No isolation or quarantine facility is prescribed, so the space and arrangements for complying with a direction have to be planned in advance.
Does the Act apply across all of Malaysia?
No. Its application is to Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territory of Labuan, so accommodation for operations in Sabah and Sarawak sits outside this Act and is governed by the applicable state and federal law there. Employers running work in both regions should not assume a single framework. Employers must also notify the Director General of occupation of accommodation within thirty days.
Sources: Employees’ Minimum Standards of Housing, Accommodations and Amenities Act 1990 (Act 446), section list and Part structure, with Part III covering health, hospital, medical treatment and sanitation on estates through section 15 employer to construct and maintain estate hospital including group estate hospitals, section 16 payment and recovery of hospital expenses, section 17 sick workers admitted to a Government hospital, section 18 transportation of sick workers to hospital, section 19 medical treatment in an estate on which a hospital is not maintained, section 20 duty to report suspected cases of infectious disease, section 21 duty of employer to segregate a worker suffering from infectious disease, section 22 power of the Medical Officer of Health to order immunization and section 23 weekly inspection of workers’ housing, and with Part IIIA at sections 24A to 24N covering application, interpretation, the Director General’s functions and powers, certification, notice of occupation, minimum standards, deductions, compliance with local authority law, facilities, safety and health duties, maintenance, the person in charge of accommodation, notice to vacate and dependants · Employees’ Minimum Standards of Housing, Accommodations and Amenities (Amendment) Act 2019, as introduced in the amendment bill, inserting Part IIIA applicable to employees employed otherwise than to work in an estate, amending the short title and limiting territorial application to Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territory of Labuan, section 24D requiring a Certificate for Accommodation with a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit for an employer and a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both for a centralized accommodation provider, section 24E requiring notice of occupation to the Director General within thirty days, section 24J(e) requiring that employees receive the necessary medical assistance, section 24J(f) requiring preventive measures to contain the spread of infectious diseases as ordered by the Medical Officer of Health together with immunization at the employer’s expense where ordered, and section 24L(2)(c) requiring the person in charge to ensure an employee is taken to a clinic or hospital on complaint about their health and to keep a record of complaints, with no provision for sick bays or isolation facilities. Wording should be checked against the Act as currently in force · Employees’ Minimum Standards of Housing, Accommodations and Amenities (Accommodation and Centralized Accommodation) Regulations 2020, in operation 1 September 2020, whose Schedule lists one first aid kit for both non-dormitory and dormitory accommodation and contains no provision for medical facilities, sick bay, isolation or quarantine, with minimum sleeping area of 3 m² per employee for dormitory accommodation. This article is general information and not legal advice.
MarineCraft Journal
Get the next briefing in your inbox
Safety protocols, offshore training, regulation and market analysis, written for Malaysia’s maritime and offshore industry. No sales pitches.
We use your address only to send MarineCraft Journal. Unsubscribe any time. See our Privacy Policy.