The baseline rule and what needs no extra paperwork
Section 24(1) sets the baseline: no deduction is lawful except as this Act allows, and it applies only where the Act itself does — Peninsular Malaysia and Labuan, not Sabah or Sarawak, which run their own separate labour ordinances. Without needing the employee’s written request, an employer may deduct for a genuine overpayment made in the immediately preceding three months by the employer’s own mistake, or for the indemnity owed under s.13(1) if the employee broke the contract without proper notice.
A narrower tier needs the employee’s own written request specifically — payments to a registered trade union or co-operative thrift and loan society, or payments for shares in the employer’s business. These aren’t typically relevant to a domestic-helper household, but they sit in the same statutory structure as the tier that follows. (A separate s.24(2)(c) provision on recovering wage advances cross-references s.22, a section that itself doesn’t apply to a domestic employee — whether that specific deduction route is usable for her wages isn’t settled by the text alone.)
The tier that matters most: written request AND Director General approval
For accommodation the employer provides, deducting from her wages requires both the employee’s own written request and the Director General’s prior written permission — and the Act is explicit that the DG won’t grant that permission unless satisfied the arrangement is for the employee’s benefit. Simply deciding as the employer that housing is worth a set amount and deducting it isn’t, on this text, a lawful deduction without going through that process.
The same tier covers deductions for a superannuation scheme, provident fund, employer’s welfare scheme, or insurance scheme set up for the employee’s benefit, third-party payments made on her behalf, and purchases of the employer’s own business goods — all needing the same two-part authorisation, her written request and the DG’s written permission.
Why food is a separate, stricter case
The Act’s own s.24(4)(e) groups food together with accommodation as something that could, in principle, be deducted through the same written-request-plus-DG-approval process. But the standard service contract JTKSM publishes for hiring a foreign domestic helper doesn’t use that permissive route — it states directly that food must be provided at no cost to her, and that deducting wages for it is strictly prohibited, without the conditional language the Act itself uses. Where a specific, official contract term is stricter than what the general Act would technically permit, following the stricter term is the safer and correct standard to work to.
Total deductions under this section in any one month can’t exceed 50% of that month’s wages, with a housing-loan repayment able to push that up by a further 25%; the s.13(1) indemnity and final-settlement amounts that are lawfully owed aren’t capped at all. Anything not covered by one of these specific categories simply isn’t a lawful deduction under the Act — there’s no general "employer’s discretion" category to fall back on.