Learn Hardcore Malay: Saya pernah kerja di pejabat itu.

Pernah expresses that something has happened at least once in the past. It often corresponds to English “have (ever)” or “once / at one time” when talking about life experience.

Saya pernah kerja di pejabat itu.
→ “I have worked in that office before / I once worked in that office.”

The action is:

in the past
completed
not tied to a specific time (no “in 2019”, “last year” etc.)
something that counts as past experience

So pernah focuses on experience, not on when exactly it happened.

How is pernah different from sudah?

Both relate to the past, but they focus on different things:

pernah = has ever / has once (emphasises experience)
sudah = already (emphasises completion)

Examples:

Saya pernah kerja di pejabat itu.
→ “I have (at some point) worked in that office.”
Focus: experience in your life.
Saya sudah kerja di pejabat itu.
→ “I already worked in that office (before now / before some other point).”
Focus: the work is finished; contrast with something else (e.g. “I’ve already done that job”).

You can sometimes combine them:

Saya sudah pernah kerja di pejabat itu.
→ Stronger “I have already had the experience of working in that office (before).”

But in many everyday contexts, pernah alone is enough to show past experience.

Why is it kerja and not bekerja? Are both correct?

Both forms are possible, but there is a nuance:

kerja is originally a noun (“work, job”) but in everyday Malay it is very commonly used as a verb (“to work”).
bekerja is the more explicitly verbal / more formal form, using the prefix ber-.

So you can say:

Saya pernah kerja di pejabat itu.
→ common, natural in spoken Malay; also acceptable in many written contexts.
Saya pernah bekerja di pejabat itu.
→ a bit more formal / standard, often preferred in careful writing (essays, official documents).

Meaning-wise, they are the same: “I have worked in that office before.”

If Malay doesn’t have verb tenses like English, how do we know this is past?

Malay has no tense inflection (no -ed, -s, etc.). Instead, it uses:

Time words – e.g. semalam (yesterday), dulu (formerly), nanti (later).
Aspect words – e.g. sudah (already), pernah (has ever), sedang (in the middle of), akan (will).

In this sentence:

pernah tells us it’s a past experience.
There is no future/ongoing marker like akan or sedang.

So Saya pernah kerja di pejabat itu is naturally understood as past: “I have worked / I once worked in that office.” Context fills in any extra details.

Can I say Saya kerja di pejabat itu without pernah? What is the difference?

Yes, you can, but the meaning changes.

Saya kerja di pejabat itu.
→ Usually means “I work in that office.”
This suggests your current job (habitual / present).
Saya pernah kerja di pejabat itu.
→ “I have worked in that office before / I once worked in that office.”
This suggests you used to work there, or that it happened at some point in your past, not necessarily now.

So pernah is important here to show that it’s past experience, not your present employment.

Can I use pernah in the negative, like “I have never worked there”?

Yes. To say “never” in this sense, Malay uses:

tidak pernah + verb

Example:

Saya tidak pernah kerja di pejabat itu.
→ “I have never worked in that office.”

You can also use bekerja:

Saya tidak pernah bekerja di pejabat itu.

This means that in all your life up to now, that experience has never happened.

Is pejabat the only word for “office”? What about ofis?

Both are used, but they differ in style:

pejabat
- Standard Malay
- Common in formal/written contexts, official names, news, etc.
- E.g. pejabat pos = post office
ofis (from English “office”)
- Informal / colloquial, especially in speech or casual writing
- Often used in everyday conversation:
  - Saya kerja kat ofis tu.
    → “I work at that office.”

In your sentence, pejabat is neutral and suitable for both spoken and written standard Malay:

Saya pernah kerja di pejabat itu.

Why is itu after pejabat? How is that different from ini?

In Malay, demonstratives like ini (“this”) and itu (“that”) usually come after the noun:

pejabat itu = that office
pejabat ini = this office

itu vs ini:

itu:
- can mean “that” (physically farther or previously mentioned)
- can also give a feeling of “that (one we both know about)”.
ini:
- usually “this”, something near the speaker or just introduced.

So:

Saya pernah kerja di pejabat itu.
→ “I have worked in that office (the one we’re talking about / over there).”

If you changed it to pejabat ini, it would be:

Saya pernah kerja di pejabat ini.
→ “I have worked in this office (here / this one).”

Why do we use di before pejabat itu? Could we leave it out?

Di is the basic preposition for location (“in, at, on” depending on context).

di pejabat itu = at / in that office

You cannot omit di here. Without it:

Saya pernah kerja pejabat itu.
This is ungrammatical; it sounds like “I have worked that office,” which doesn’t work in Malay.

Compare:

di = at/in/on (location)
- di rumah (at home), di sekolah (at school)
ke = to (direction)
- ke rumah (to home), ke pejabat (to the office)

In your sentence, you’re saying where you worked (location), so di is correct.

Is Saya pernah kerja di pejabat itu formal or informal? How would it sound in casual speech?

The given sentence is quite neutral and acceptable in most contexts. It’s not very stiff, not very slangy.

In more formal or written language, you might slightly prefer:

Saya pernah bekerja di pejabat itu.

In casual colloquial speech (e.g. in Kuala Lumpur), people might say something like:

Aku pernah kerja kat ofis tu.
- Aku = informal “I”
- kat = colloquial for di
- ofis = informal “office”
- tu = colloquial for itu

But for learners, Saya pernah (be)kerja di pejabat itu is a good, safe, and natural model.