Learn Hardcore Malay: Ibu saya ajar bahawa hak kanak-kanak di kampung kami untuk belajar mesti dihormati. - My mother teaches that the right of children in our village to study must be respected.

Ibu saya ajar…
literally: My mother teach…
The person being taught is understood to be the speaker (or the family), so it doesn’t have to be said.

If you want to say it explicitly, you can:

Ibu saya mengajar saya bahawa… – My mother taught me that…
Ibu saya mengajar kami bahawa… – My mother taught us that…

All are grammatically correct. The original sentence is just more natural and less repetitive in Malay because the object is clear from context.

What is the difference between ajar and mengajar here? Can I say Ibu saya mengajar bahawa…?

Both ajar and mengajar come from the same root and both can mean “to teach”, but there are stylistic and grammatical nuances:

ajar
- Root word.
- Very common in everyday speech: Dia ajar saya. – He/She taught me.
- Often used in imperatives: Ajar saya! – Teach me!
- Can sound a bit more casual.
mengajar
- Formed with the prefix meN-: ajar → mengajar.
- More common in formal or written Malay.
- Feels slightly more “complete”/standard in full sentences:
  Ibu saya mengajar bahawa… is perfectly correct and sounds more formal.

In your sentence, both are acceptable:

Ibu saya ajar bahawa… – natural, a bit colloquial.
Ibu saya mengajar bahawa… – natural, a bit more formal.

So yes, you may say mengajar instead of ajar.

What does bahawa do in this sentence? Is it the same as English “that”, and can it be omitted?

Yes, bahawa functions like English “that” introducing a clause:

Ibu saya ajar bahawa…
= My mother taught (me) that…

It marks the beginning of the content of what was taught.

About omitting it:

In informal speech or writing, you can often drop bahawa after verbs like kata (say), fikir (think), tahu (know), ajar/mengajar (teach):
- Dia kata dia tak datang. – He said (that) he’s not coming.
- Ibu saya ajar hak kanak-kanak… (less formal)
In more formal or careful language, especially with long clauses, bahawa is preferred because it makes the structure clearer.

So bahawa here is not absolutely required in casual speech, but it is standard and very natural, especially in writing.

How does hak kanak-kanak work? Why not hak-hak kanak-kanak if it means “children’s rights”?

hak = right / rights (legal, moral, human rights)
kanak-kanak = children

In Malay, a noun like hak can already be collective or generic, so:

hak kanak-kanak = children’s rights (in general)

You can say hak-hak kanak-kanak, but:

hak-hak adds emphasis on multiple individual rights.
In practice, for general ideas like human rights, children’s rights, etc., Malay usually just uses the singular form:
- hak asasi manusia – human rights
- hak wanita – women’s rights
- hak kanak-kanak – children’s rights

So hak kanak-kanak is the most natural form for “children’s rights.”

Why is kanak-kanak doubled with a hyphen? How is it different from anak or budak?

kanak-kanak is a reduplicated noun:

Root: kanak (rarely used alone in modern Malay)
Reduplicated: kanak-kanak = children

Reduplication commonly marks plural or a collective group, but in this case kanak-kanak is treated as a standard word meaning children.

Differences:

kanak-kanak
- More formal/neutral.
- Used in official contexts: hak kanak-kanak, pakaian kanak-kanak (children’s clothing).
anak
- Literally: child / son / daughter.
- Often refers to one’s own child: anak saya = my child.
- anak-anak = children (of someone).
budak
- Informal, sometimes can sound a bit casual or slightly dismissive, but often neutral in speech.
- budak-budak = kids.

In your sentence, kanak-kanak is appropriate because the topic is rights, which is more formal and general.

What does di kampung kami exactly mean? Why kami and not kita?

di = in/at
kampung = village
kami = we/us (excluding the person being spoken to)

So di kampung kami = in our village (but not including the listener as part of “our”).

Malay distinguishes:

kami – we (not including you)
kita – we (including you)

So:

If you’re talking to someone who is not from your village:
kanak-kanak di kampung kami – children in our village (not yours).
If you’re talking to someone who shares that village with you:
kanak-kanak di kampung kita – children in our (yours + mine) village.

The original sentence implies the listener is not part of that village, or at least the focus is on the speaker’s group, not including the listener.

Which part does di kampung kami modify? The children or the studying? Could we move it?

In the original:

hak kanak-kanak di kampung kami untuk belajar

The most natural reading is:

kanak-kanak di kampung kami = children in our village
Their right to study/learn must be respected.

So di kampung kami modifies kanak-kanak.

If you move it:

hak kanak-kanak untuk belajar di kampung kami
- Now di kampung kami most naturally modifies belajar, so the meaning shifts towards:
- the right of children to study in our village
  (the location is about where the studying happens).
Di kampung kami, hak kanak-kanak untuk belajar mesti dihormati.
- Here di kampung kami is a sentence-level location:
- In our village, children’s right to education must be respected.

So the placement of di kampung kami changes what it’s attached to (children, studying, or the whole statement), just like in English.

What does untuk belajar do here? Is it like an English infinitive (“to study”)? Could we say just belajar?

Yes, untuk belajar is similar to the English “to study” when it expresses purpose or entitlement:

hak kanak-kanak … untuk belajar
= children’s right to study / to receive education

Here:

untuk = for / in order to / to (for purpose)
belajar = to study / to learn

Without untuk, the phrase would be less clearly marked as a purpose/infinitive:

hak kanak-kanak belajar is grammatical but more ambiguous and less natural; it may sound like “the right that children study,” instead of “the right to study.”

So untuk belajar clearly shows what the right is for (the purpose).

What does mesti mean, and how is it different from harus or perlu?

mesti expresses a strong obligation or necessity, similar to English “must”:

mesti dihormati = must be respected

Other similar words:

harus
- Often used like should / ought to or must, depending on context.
- Sometimes feels slightly softer than mesti, but in modern usage they often overlap.
perlu
- Literally: need to / necessary to.
- More about necessity than obligation:
  - Hak kanak-kanak perlu dihormati.
    Children’s rights need to be / have to be respected.
wajib
- Stronger and more formal: compulsory, obligatory:
  - Hak kanak-kanak wajib dihormati.

In your sentence, mesti is natural and strong, emphasizing that respecting children’s rights is a clear obligation.

How is dihormati formed, and what’s the difference between dihormati and menghormati?

dihormati is a passive verb:

Root: hormat = respect (noun/verb)
Passive form: di- + hormat + -i → dihormati

Meaning:

dihormati = to be respected / be honoured

In your sentence:

mesti dihormati = must be respected

Compare with menghormati:

meng- + hormat + -i → menghormati (active, transitive)
menghormati = to respect (someone/something)

Examples:

Kita mesti menghormati hak kanak-kanak.
We must respect children’s rights. (active – we do the respecting)
Hak kanak-kanak mesti dihormati.
Children’s rights must be respected. (passive – the rights receive respect)

So dihormati puts the focus on the rights, not on who is doing the respecting.

Why is there no oleh phrase after dihormati, like “oleh semua orang”?

In Malay passives with di-, the agent (the doer) is often omitted when:

it’s obvious (e.g. “by everyone”),
it doesn’t matter, or
the focus is on the object.

So:

Hak kanak-kanak… mesti dihormati.
= Children’s rights must be respected. (by people in general)

You can include the agent:

Hak kanak-kanak… mesti dihormati oleh semua orang.
Children’s rights must be respected by everyone.

Both are correct.
Leaving out oleh … keeps the sentence more general and is very natural in Malay, just like English often leaves out “by people” or “by everyone.”

Why don’t we use adalah anywhere? Could we say Hak kanak-kanak… adalah mesti dihormati?

adalah is typically a linking word between:

a subject and a noun/noun phrase, or
a subject and an adjective, especially in formal written Malay.

For example:

Hak kanak-kanak adalah perkara penting.
Children’s rights are an important matter.

In your sentence, the predicate is a verb phrase:

mesti dihormati = must be respected

Malay does not use adalah before a verb phrase.
So:

Hak kanak-kanak… adalah mesti dihormati ❌ unnatural / incorrect.
Hak kanak-kanak… mesti dihormati ✅ correct.

So the sentence is already in the right form; adalah does not belong here.

Why is there no yang in hak kanak-kanak di kampung kami untuk belajar? Could we say hak yang kanak-kanak di kampung kami untuk belajar?

yang is mainly used to:

Introduce relative clauses:
- pelajar yang rajin – the student who is diligent
Mark focus in some structures.

In your phrase:

hak kanak-kanak di kampung kami untuk belajar
- hak = rights
- kanak-kanak di kampung kami = children in our village
- untuk belajar = to study

Here kanak-kanak di kampung kami acts as a noun modifier (“of the children in our village”), not a full relative clause, so yang is not needed.

If you insert yang, you change the structure and it becomes ungrammatical or at best very odd:

hak yang kanak-kanak di kampung kami untuk belajar ❌
There is no clear clause after yang, so it doesn’t work.

Correct alternatives using yang would need a full clause:

hak kanak-kanak yang tinggal di kampung kami untuk belajar
= the right of children who live in our village to study.

In short: yang is not used here because kanak-kanak di kampung kami is a straightforward noun modifier, not a relative clause.