Learn Hardcore Malay: Bila kami dengar siren bomba dari asrama, kami berharap tiada kebakaran serius berlaku. - When we hear the fire-engine siren from the dormitory, we hope no serious fire is happening.

When (past):
Context like your sentence usually makes it past:
Bila kami dengar siren bomba… ≈ When we heard the fire-engine siren…
When / whenever (general):
In a more general statement, bila can be understood as whenever:
Bila kami dengar siren bomba, kami risau.
≈ Whenever we hear the fire-engine siren, we get worried.

Malay does not mark tense on the verb, so dengar stays the same. The time (past vs general) is inferred from context or from extra time words like tadi (earlier), akan (will), etc.

More formal Malay often uses apabila or ketika instead of bila, but the meaning in this sentence is essentially when.

Why is kami used instead of kita? Both seem to mean we.

Malay has two words for we:

kami = we (excluding the listener)
kita = we (including the listener)

In this sentence, kami shows that the group referred to does not include the person being spoken to. For example:

Students talking about themselves to a teacher:
- Bila kami dengar siren bomba dari asrama…
  = We (the students, not including you) heard the siren…

If the listener was part of the same group (for example, two students who live in the same dorm talking to each other), they would more naturally use kita:

Bila kita dengar siren bomba dari asrama…
= When we (you and I) heard the siren from the dorm…

Why is it dengar and not mendengar? What is the difference?

Both dengar and mendengar are correct verbs meaning to hear, but they differ in formality and style:

dengar
- Base verb (root form)
- Very common in speech and in neutral writing
- Short and natural in sentences like this
mendengar
- MeN- verb form (more formal, often used in written/formal Malay)
- Sometimes feels a bit heavier or bookish in casual speech

In your sentence, both are grammatically correct:

Bila kami dengar siren bomba… (more natural, everyday)
Apabila kami mendengar siren bomba… (more formal/written)

Because bila itself is informal, dengar matches the overall tone better.

What exactly does bomba mean here? Is it fire, fire truck, or firefighters?

Bomba in Malaysia (and some other Malay-speaking areas) refers to the fire and rescue department in general. In everyday usage, bomba can loosely refer to:

The fire department (the organization)
The firefighters
By extension, the fire engine (because that’s what you see and hear)

In siren bomba, the most natural interpretation is:

siren bomba = the fire engine’s siren / the fire department’s siren

You might also see:

kereta bomba or lori bomba = fire engine / fire truck
anggota bomba = firefighter(s)
pihak bomba = the fire department (as an institution)

Why is it siren bomba and not something like siren kereta bomba? Is siren bomba a set phrase?

Siren bomba is a very natural and common collocation. Literally it is:

siren bomba = the siren belonging to the fire department/fire engine

In context, people usually understand:

siren bomba → the siren on the fire engine (what you hear on the road)

You can be more specific:

siren kereta bomba / siren lori bomba = the fire truck’s siren

But in everyday speech, that extra detail is usually unnecessary. Siren bomba is short, clear, and idiomatic.

What does dari asrama mean here? Does it mean the siren comes from the dorm, or that we heard it while we were in the dorm?

In this sentence, dari asrama most naturally describes where the speakers were when they heard the siren:

Bila kami dengar siren bomba dari asrama…
≈ When we heard the fire-engine siren from (our) dorm…
→ We were in/at the dorm and from there we heard the siren.

It does not mean the siren is physically located in the dorm. It’s about the point of hearing.

If you wanted to clearly say the siren was at the dorm, you might rephrase, for example:

Bila kami dengar siren bomba di asrama…
= When we heard the fire-engine siren at the dorm (location of the siren/event).

What is the difference between dari and daripada, and could we use daripada asrama here?

Both dari and daripada can translate as from, but they have typical uses:

dari
- Physical origin or direction:
  - dari asrama = from the dorm
  - dari rumah, dari sekolah
- Time expressions:
  - dari pagi sampai malam = from morning till night
daripada
- Source in a more abstract or non-physical sense:
  - hadiah daripada ibu = a gift from mother
  - nasihat daripada guru = advice from the teacher
- Comparisons:
  - lebih besar daripada itu = bigger than that

In your sentence, dari asrama (physical location where you are hearing the siren) is correct and natural.
Daripada asrama would sound odd here.

How is past tense shown here? In English we say heard, but Malay just has dengar.

Malay verbs generally do not change form for tense. The verb dengar can mean:

hear / hears
heard
will hear

The time reference comes from:

Context (what you’re talking about)
Time words (e.g. tadi = earlier, semalam = last night, esok = tomorrow)
Sometimes adverbs like sudah/telah (already) or akan (will)

So:

Bila kami dengar siren bomba dari asrama…
In context of a story about the past, it is understood as When we heard the fire-engine siren from the dorm…

You don’t need to change dengar itself to mark past tense.

What is the difference between tiada, tidak ada, and tak ada?

All three can express there is no / there are no / not having, but they differ in formality and style:

tiada
- More formal, written, or careful speech
- Often used in narratives, news, signage, official contexts
- Fits well in your sentence: kami berharap tiada kebakaran serius…
tidak ada
- Neutral, standard spoken and written Malay
- Slightly more casual than tiada
- You could also say: kami berharap tidak ada kebakaran serius berlaku.
tak ada
- Informal, everyday spoken form (contracted tidak → tak)
- Common in conversation:
  - Kami harap tak ada kebakaran serius.

In your sentence, tiada gives a slightly more formal or written feel, but tidak ada would also be correct.

Why is kebakaran used instead of api? Don’t both mean fire?

Kebakaran and api both relate to fire, but they are used differently:

api
- Fire as a substance or flame:
  - nyalakan api = light a fire
  - padamkan api = put out the fire
- Also used for flames on a stove, candle, etc.
kebakaran
- A fire incident, usually something burning that shouldn’t be burning
- Closer to a fire (accident) in English:
  - kebakaran besar = a big fire
  - berlaku kebakaran di kilang itu = a fire occurred at that factory

In tiada kebakaran serius berlaku, kebakaran means a fire incident, so the clause is:

tiada kebakaran serius berlaku
≈ no serious fire (incident) occurred / was happening

Using api here would sound wrong; api serius berlaku is not idiomatic.

What does berlaku add to tiada kebakaran serius? Can we leave it out?

Berlaku means to happen / to occur / to take place.

tiada kebakaran serius berlaku
Literally: no serious fire occurred / happened

You can say tiada kebakaran serius by itself:

Kami berharap tiada kebakaran serius.
= We hope there is no serious fire.

This is still correct and natural. Adding berlaku:

Emphasizes the occurrence of an event
Sounds slightly more complete and typical in written or careful speech

So:

With berlaku: Focus on no serious fire incident taking place
Without berlaku: Focus on there not being any serious fire

Both are acceptable; the version with berlaku just feels a bit more formal and event-focused.

Why is there no bahawa after kami berharap? Would kami berharap bahawa tiada kebakaran serius berlaku also be correct?

Bahawa is a conjunction similar to that in English, introducing a clause:

kami berharap bahawa… = we hope that…

In Malay, bahawa is often optional, especially in everyday style. So:

Kami berharap tiada kebakaran serius berlaku.
Kami berharap bahawa tiada kebakaran serius berlaku.

Both are grammatically correct and mean the same thing. The version with bahawa:

Feels slightly more formal or bookish
Is more common in formal writing, speeches, or reports

In normal conversation or neutral narrative, omitting bahawa (as in your sentence) is very natural.