Selepas kejadian kebakaran itu, pihak bomba memberi ceramah keselamatan di sekolah kami.

After that fire incident, the fire department gave a safety talk at our school.

Breakdown of Selepas kejadian kebakaran itu, pihak bomba memberi ceramah keselamatan di sekolah kami.

• itu: that
• di: at
• selepas: after
• memberi: to give
• kami: our
• sekolah: the school
• kebakaran: the fire
• kejadian: the incident
• pihak bomba: the fire department
• ceramah keselamatan: the safety talk

Questions & Answers about Selepas kejadian kebakaran itu, pihak bomba memberi ceramah keselamatan di sekolah kami.

What is the difference between selepas, lepas, and sesudah? Could I replace selepas with the others in this sentence?

All three basically mean “after”, but they differ slightly in style and formality:

• selepas – neutral and common in both spoken and written Malay. Fits well in this sentence.
• lepas – more informal/colloquial; very common in everyday speech.
• sesudah – a bit more formal or literary; often seen in writing, religious contexts, or formal speeches.

In this sentence:

• Selepas kejadian kebakaran itu, pihak bomba memberi ceramah… ✅ (standard, natural)
• Lepas kejadian kebakaran itu, pihak bomba memberi ceramah… ✅ (sounds more informal/spoken)
• Sesudah kejadian kebakaran itu, pihak bomba memberi ceramah… ✅ (slightly more formal/literary flavour)

So yes, you can replace selepas with lepas or sesudah, but the tone changes slightly.

Why do we say kejadian kebakaran? Isn’t kebakaran already “the fire” or “the fire incident”? Is kejadian necessary?

Kebakaran on its own already means “a fire (as an incident)” or “a fire outbreak”.
Kejadian means “incident / occurrence / event”.

So:

• kebakaran = a fire (as an event, not just “fire” as an element)
• kejadian = incident
• kejadian kebakaran = a fire incident / the incident of a fire

In everyday usage:

• Selepas kebakaran itu, … – “After that fire (incident), …” ✅
• Selepas kejadian itu, … – “After that incident, …” ✅
• Selepas kejadian kebakaran itu, … – “After that fire incident, …” ✅ (a bit more formal/specific)

Kejadian kebakaran is slightly more formal and explicit. It’s common in news reports, official writing, or when you want to sound more precise. You could drop kejadian and just say Selepas kebakaran itu… and it would still sound natural.

What exactly does itu do in kejadian kebakaran itu? Does it mean “that” or “the”? Can it be omitted?

Itu literally means “that”, but in Malay it also functions like a definite article (“the”) in many contexts.

• kejadian kebakaran itu = “that fire incident” / “the fire incident (already known from context)”

Without itu, the phrase becomes more general:

• kejadian kebakaran = “a fire incident” / “fire incidents (in general)”

In this sentence, itu tells us we’re talking about a specific, known fire that has already happened, not just fire incidents in general. That’s why it helps make the time reference clearer: after that particular fire incident.

You could say:

• Selepas kebakaran, pihak bomba… – grammatically okay, but sounds less specific, more like “after a fire”.

Using itu is more natural when you mean one particular event everybody in the conversation already knows about.

What does pihak in pihak bomba mean? Why not just say bomba?

Pihak can be translated roughly as “party / side / the (institutional) body”. It’s often used before the name of an organisation, authority, or group to make it sound more formal or official.

• bomba = the fire brigade / fire department
• pihak bomba = the fire department (seen as an official party/authority)

So:

• bomba datang – “the fire brigade came” (okay, neutral)
• pihak bomba datang – “the fire department came (as an official party)” (more formal, often used in news and reports)

In this sentence, pihak bomba sounds like “the fire department (as an organisation) gave a safety talk”, not just “some firefighters came and talked”. You can say bomba memberi ceramah…, but pihak bomba matches the slightly formal tone of kejadian, ceramah, etc.

Is bomba singular or plural here? Does pihak bomba mean one firefighter or many?

Malay does not normally mark singular/plural on nouns. So:

• bomba can mean “firefighter” (a person) or “fire brigade / fire service” (an institution), depending on context.
• pihak bomba clearly refers to the institution (fire department) as a whole, not one person.

In this sentence, pihak bomba naturally means “the fire department (as an organisation)”. We understand that some representatives of the fire department came and gave the talk, but Malay doesn’t need to mark the plural explicitly.

What is the difference between memberi and beri in pihak bomba memberi ceramah? Are they interchangeable?

The base verb is beri = “to give”.

memberi = meN- (a verbal prefix) + beri.
Functionally:

• beri – base form; used a lot in speech; neutral but a bit less formal.
• memberi – more formal/polished; common in writing and formal contexts.

In this sentence:

• pihak bomba memberi ceramah ✅ (formal/standard)
• pihak bomba beri ceramah ✅ (still correct; sounds more casual/spoken)

There is no change in meaning here; it’s mainly about formality and style. With many verbs, the meN- form is preferred in standard written Malay.

How does ceramah keselamatan work grammatically? Why is keselamatan after ceramah, and not before like in English “safety talk”?

Malay typically uses “head noun + modifier” (the opposite of English “modifier + noun”).

• ceramah = talk / lecture
• keselamatan = safety
• ceramah keselamatan = “safety talk / safety lecture”
  (literally: “talk [about] safety”)

So the structure is:

• [head noun] + [qualifying noun]
• ceramah (what is it?) → keselamatan (about what?)

You cannot reverse it:

• keselamatan ceramah ❌ (ungrammatical / nonsense)

If you want to be more explicit, you could say:

• ceramah tentang keselamatan – “a talk about safety”

But ceramah keselamatan is already natural and compact.

Could I say ceramah yang selamat instead of ceramah keselamatan?

No, that would mean something different.

• Ceramah keselamatan = “a safety talk” (a talk whose topic is safety).
• Ceramah yang selamat = “a talk that is safe” (the talk itself is safe, not dangerous).

Keselamatan is a noun (“safety”), so ceramah keselamatan means “a talk (about) safety”.

Selamat is an adjective (“safe”), so ceramah yang selamat would describe the condition of the talk, not its content. That’s not what you usually want here.

Why is di used in di sekolah kami? Could I use pada or leave the preposition out?

Di is the standard preposition for location (“at / in / on” in a spatial sense).

• di sekolah kami = “at our school / in our school”

pada is more abstract and is often used for:

• time: pada hari Isnin – on Monday
• people/abstract things: bergantung pada keadaan – depends on the situation

With a physical place like sekolah, di is the natural choice.

You cannot just drop the preposition in Malay:

• sekolah kami = “our school” (a noun phrase)
• di sekolah kami = “at our school” (prepositional phrase)

So pihak bomba memberi ceramah keselamatan di sekolah kami is correct;
… ceramah keselamatan sekolah kami would change the meaning to “our school’s safety talk” (as if the talk belongs to the school), not “a talk that took place at our school”.

What is the difference between kami and kita in sekolah kami? Could I say sekolah kita?

Both kami and kita mean “we / us / our”, but:

• kami = exclusive “we” (does not include the person you’re talking to)
• kita = inclusive “we” (does include the person you’re talking to)

So:

• sekolah kami = “our school (but not yours)”
• sekolah kita = “our school (yours and mine)”

Whether sekolah kami or sekolah kita is correct depends on who the listener is:

• Talking to another student from the same school → sekolah kita is more natural.
• Talking to someone who is not from that school → sekolah kami is correct.

In isolation, the sentence with sekolah kami implies the listener is an outsider to that school.

How do we know this sentence is in the past tense when the verb form doesn’t change? Could we add something like telah?

Malay verbs usually do not change form for tense (past/present/future). Time is shown by:

• time words: selepas, semalam, nanti, etc.
• context
• optional aspect markers like sudah, telah, akan, sedang

Here, selepas kejadian kebakaran itu plus the meaning of the sentence already show that the event (the talk) happened after a past incident. So we naturally understand it as past.

You can add telah or sudah for emphasis:

• … pihak bomba telah memberi ceramah keselamatan…
• … pihak bomba sudah memberi ceramah keselamatan…

Both mean “the fire department has given / gave a safety talk”.
They make the past-ness a bit more explicit, but they are not required for the sentence to be correct or clear.