







































Banditry in Semarang, 1950-1958 

 

Joseph Army Sadhyoko,* Agustinus Supriyono, Dhanang Respati Puguh 

Master Program of History, Faculty of Humanities, Diponegoro University 
 

*Corresponding Author: josepharmy16@gmail.com 

 

 

Abstract 
 

This article discusses about banditry that occurred in Semarang during 

the period of 1950-1958 with the problem focus on the causes of the 

banditry, types of banditry, and mitigation. Through the historical 

method, this article reconstructs those problems by using the approach of 

social reality of crime concept. In result, the banditry happened in the 

aftermath of the independence war, occurred due to economic 

difficulties, the reorganization and rationalization program, and the 

circulation of guns that was uncontrolled.  

 

Keywords: Semarang; Banditry; Social reality of crime. 
 

 

 

Introduction 

Nationally, banditry cases have not been widely discussed. There are only at least 

two cities in Indonesia during the War of Independence and Post-War Independence 

discussing these cases. These cities were Yogyakarta and Jakarta. As for Semarang, 

there was only a few people knowing how far the banditry had occurred in the city 

(Fauzi, 2005; Budi, 1998; Purwanto, 2005). 

In general, Independence War taking place within the period 1945-1949 led to 

the destruction of many infrastructure facilities and bad economic conditions. 

Therefore, it was important for the government to carry out immediate 

improvements in the sector of physical and economic development. Meanwhile, in 

the sector of employment, both civilian and military require restructuration and 

rationalization (Rera) at the post-War of Independence. Rera's policy was applied by 

Government of the Republic of Indonesia on January 1948. Minister Mohammad 

Hatta, who became head of government at that time, was eager to create conditions 

"one soldier one commando” (Djamhari, 2012:49-50). 

An excessive number of fighters and the presence of military formation outside 

the regular army was a concern of the central government. Therefore, their existence 

had to be regulated through this Rera policy. The Rera policy needed to regulate not 

only the fighters but also Central and local governments in order to reorganize 

scattered civil servants during the war. Many employees were evacuated to safe 

places. All of them had to be rearranged in order to fill the posts of government and 

the defense of the state ideally and proportionately. In addition, this policy was 

Received:  

12 April 2017 

 

Accepted:  

17 May 2017 

mailto:josepharmy16@gmail.com


expected to save the lucrative state budget and to immediately restore the state 

condition that was unstable due to war (Ricklefs, 1992:355-360). 

Along with the struggle for full sovereignty, the Indonesian government in 

practice did not follow Rera's policies consistently. Nationally, Rera was enacted on 

June 1950 by mobilizing some 70,000 former soldiers to be returned to society. 25,000 

of them were from Java. Central government promised that the former soldiers 

would get jobs immediately according to their interests, particularly in agriculture 

and carpentry (Suara Merdeka, 5 June 1950:2). 

In national scale, Rera's policy was much too late when compared to Central 

Java Province. Rera's policy had been enacted since April 1950 by returning the ex-

student army of 2,500 people to the community. 90 percent of that amount were 

requested by the government to go back to school, while the rest were required to 

find job independently and some also personally chose to pursue military education. 

Meanwhile, in Semarang, the Rera's policy was enacted a month later. On May 1950 

the city of Semarang received about 3,000 former student soldiers from 

approximately 10,000 former soldiers to be returned to Central Java Province. The 

municipal government even planned to accommodat former student soldiers who 

were graduated from junior and senior high school in a student dormitory. This 

dormitory was planned to be built in the area of Jalan Halmahera and Jatingaleh. For 

the remaining approximately 7,000 former soldiers in Central Java, the provincial 

government was still seeking funds to finance the training for students' skills (Suara 

Merdeka, 26 May 1950:4). 

Rera imposed by the central and regional governments clearly had impact to 

the increase in the number of unemployed in Indonesia at the post-War of 

Independence, especially for the fighters of the War of Independence. They were the 

main target of the policy. As a result, there were many fighters felt anxious. Those 

who had struggled to sacrifice body and soul for the country during the War of 

Independence were not accommodated in the military units formed by the 

government of the Republic of Indonesia. There were some former fighters who felt 

that they had been left by the government. Those who had been struggling for 

obtaining compensation, such as obtaining decent jobs, life-long security, and of 

course the future of their families after the state was truly sovereign (Djamhari, 49-

50). Unemployed fighters and civilians were clearly the burden of the state and were 

forced to be mobilized immediately, through skill, transmigration, education, and 

exclusively for ex fighters were incorporated into the National Reserve Corps (CTN) 

(Poesponegoro & Susanto, 2010:302). 

The issues of injustice, dissatisfaction, and the desire of some Dutch 

businessmen felt fear that their assets would be taken by the republic to the 

emergence of various resistance against the government of the Republic of Indonesia. 

One of them was the Ratu Adil Armed Force (APRA) which had a major impact in the 

early 1950s. 

The presumption of APRA sympathizers infiltration was widely known by the 

army in Central Java. People who knew how cruel APRA action in Bandung became 



worry that the rebellion would occur in their area, even some also suspected that 

APRA sympathizers began to commit criminal acts. The worried condition was seen 

in the surrender of Central Java Province from the military emergency government to 

the civil government (Suara Merdeka, 11 February 1950:4). 

Overste Suprapto tried to reduce these fears and concerns by explaining that 

Central Java province would remain safe, although it was suspected that there were 

APRA sympathizers hiding in the province. The influence of widespread 

sympathizers according to Suprapto could be prevented by providing adequate 

employment, so the number of unemployed was reduced. Suprapto suspected that 

the unemployment during the post-War Independence would be very potential to be 

recruited in the new APRA movement (Suara Merdeka, 11 February 1950:4).1 

The concerns arising from the community were not just about APRA. They 

were also suspicious on the former fighters in the War of Independence. Some cases 

that occurred in the War of Independence in some areas of Central Java, such as 

Boyolali and Surakarta, as well as Pemalang, Brebes, and Tegal showed that the 

fighters acted as Bandit (Ibarahim, 2004; Lucas, 1989). In addition, there were bandits 

exploiting the unstable regional situation during post-War of Independence.  

Based on this background, this article raises the study of social history on 

banditry in a unique urban area and Semarang was selected as the object of the 

study. First, this city was selected because there were various presumptions that 

during the post-revolutionary era of Independence, Semarang was a center of 

government and it had a rapid economy, so the city was targeted by the bandits who 

come in line with the increasing urbanization flow. Second, Semarang is the capital 

of Central Java Province during post-War of Independence which had a heroic 

national historical narrative with the Five Days Battle. However, of the fighters who 

participated in the battle, there were some fighters who had no place in the military 

service. Therefore, they joined with the bandits. Third, in general, the city that tried 

to improve their life during post-war city of Independence would have difficulty in 

disciplining and securing city due to shortage of security personnel. Semarang 

experienced the condition, so that banditry was tried to be overcame effectively. 

The social reality of crime growing in the city should have been able to bind city 

governments, law enforcers, and townspeople to jointly overcome banditry, in 

addition to the ability to know, understand, and cut the root of the banditry 

emergence that actually took place in the city of Semarang in the decade of 1950's. 

Semarang had heritage of military and police troops from Dutch and Japanese 

experiencing in the battlefield.  

Based on these descriptions, the main problem discussed in this article is why 

there was a banditry in Semarang during psot-War of Independence, 1950-1958? 

Meanwhile, in order to be able to answer the main problems above, there are several 

questions. 

 

 
1The rank of a middle officer in the army having the equal level of lieutenant colonel. 



1. What were the causes of the emergence of banditry in Semarang? 

2. Who were the bandits, what kind of banditry took place in Semarang, why did 

they choose to act in Semarang, who were their targets, and where was the 

area in Semarang most often attacked by bandits? 

3. What was the most effective handling and outcomes achieved by local 

government, law enforcers, and townspeople in order to overcome the danger 

caused by banditry in Semarang? 

 

Method 

The method used in this research is historical method. This method have four stages 

(Notosusanto, 1964:5). The first is the heuristic or process in finding and collecting 

sources and data relevant to the research problems. Data sources are obtained from 

libraries, archives, and newspaper offices (Abdullah, 2013:9). In this stage, there is 

also a critic to determine the source authenticity and the credibility level of the 

sources that being worked on. The next stage is interpretation on the data and facts 

obtained. In this stage, the synthesis of data and facts is performed to go to the last 

stage, that is historiography. This method result in systematic, scientific, and easy-to-

understand of historical writing (Kuntowijoyo, 2005:100-101). 

 

Results and Discussion 

Banditry Roots 

Almost all major cities in Indonesia still had various social problems after the 

recognition of independence. Poverty, low levels of education, destruction of public 

infrastructure (office building) and economic (plantation and industrial), increasing 

in urbanization, and rampant unemployment (civil servants and soldiers) were 

burdens that had to be resolved soon (Ricklefs, 1992:355-359). Semarang became one 

of the big cities in Indonesia that experienced such condition. The city had to rebuild 

its chaotic infrastructure and bureaucracy due to war and omnipotence by the 

colonial authorities. Development process could not be separated from the local 

government policies that saw the development of the population from various 

aspects of life. 

In addition to the issuance of weapons control and the use of military attributes, 

the problem of urbanization during post-War of Independence became problematic 

for the government of Semarang. On August 1950, Demak had experienced severe 

drought due to a long dry season. The wells and rivers were dry, so many livestock, 

rice fields, and fields of people who died before they could be harvested. In addition 

to the long dry season, the damage at the water gate of Karanganyar, for more 

precisely in Kali Wulan, due to the War of Independence since late 1945 also 

exacerbated this condition.  

The area that suffered the most as a result of the drought was Kawedanan 

Wedung whose citizens were 33,000 people. Many residents were working on 

drilling wells and stemming the Tempuran Angin-Angin, Kenceng, Gojoyo  Rivers 

but the results were also not optimal. Meanwhile, some were trying to find drinking 



water in the village of Mijen, precisely in the old Kawedanan Wedung. However, it 

was difficult for people to reach the village due to long travel time and expensive 

cost. Finally, many of those were desperate and migrated or left their house to go to 

Semarang (Suara Merdeka, 15 August 1950:2). 

On September 1952, the urbanization flows happened again from the east and 

west border of Semarang. Harvest failures due to flood and the long rainy season 

were the main cause (Suara Merdeka, 16 September 1952:4). 

On January 1954, Mount Merapi disaster caused many residents around the 

slopes to evacuate. About 4,000 residents would be evacuated to safe places (Suara 

Merdeka, 21 January 1954:1). In addition to addressing the issue of evacuation, 

donations for victims of erupted Mount Merapi were also established by several 

governmental and private agencies. This condition also indicated the emergence of 

MMC gangs who was suspected began their action in Semarang (Suara Merdeka, 28 

January 1954:2). 

Therefore, the growth of banditry roots was affected by social. economic, 

political condition during the post-war independence. The running revolution 

economy was not able to meet the needs of the people of Semarang. In addition, the 

administration of government bureaucracy and security of the territory requiring a 

long time and less personnel, causing the emergence of bandits and facilitate the 

bandit to perform their action in Semarang. 

 

The Bandits Action 

In Semarang, criminal acts have various terms. Some crimes could be categorized as 

banditry acts because they had some bandit terminology, such as a robber, a person 

who steals and kills cruelly and unashamedly, and the enemy of all law enforcers. 

(Gove, 1976:170 in Suhartono, 1995:93) Bandits acting in Semarang had various 

names, such as garong, begal, burglar, and robber. The different name refers to the 

objective of bandit operation. Below are some of the dominant banditry cases in 

Semarang, among others: 

 

Street Robbery 

Pembegalan (street robbery) comes from a basic word "begal" meaning a bandit who 

plunder on the road (Tim Penyusun Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, 

1999:105). The street robbers run their action without knowing the time and are 

always accompanied by threats to the victims. Some of the acts of street robbery were 

reported by Suara Merdeka daily. The first street robbery happened on the head of 

the foreman of the Borsumij company in Kampung Duwet during the afternoon 

between 13:00 and 14:00, May 5, 1950. When the victim had just left the Abdulkadir 

shop and walked towards the rest area of Tan Oei, suddenly he was approached by 

two people who forced him to hand over his money. The victim was powerless to 

refuse and hand over the money of approximately of 600 (Suara Merdeka, 6 May 

1950).  



One of examples of the above street robbery event was obtained from Suara 

Merdeka newspaper and from this newspaper, it was also known that the year with 

the greatest street robbery cases was in 1950 with 21 cases. This great number was 

related to the excesses of the revolution that created a city situation that was not yet 

completely secure and stable. While in the following years, the street robbery 

intensity declined considerably compared to what happened in 1950, not even ten 

cases in a year.  

The second analysis was related to the use of firearms by the begal. In 1950, 

there were 18 cases then continued to decline in subsequent years, not even up to five 

cases in a year. This condition occurred because of the implementation of Emergency 

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 1951 on firearms that were applied 

strictly. For the perpetrator who was caught to have firearm shall have been 

threatened to have death penalty as the maximum penalty.  

Third, street robbers targeted quiet road located in villages in the city of 

Semarang. This proved that the villages in Semarang were not safe because almost 

every year, street robbery case always happened, even in public roads, this crime 

also happened. In addition, the border area of the city was also quite prone to this 

street robbery. These conditions also illustrated that the polices in Semarang did not 

yet work well. 

Fourth, there were various goods grabbed by the begal, ranging from 

merchandise, cars, luggage, jewelry, motor cycles, and so on. This showed that the 

street robbers were not picky in action. All the goods carried by the victim were 

grabbed. Such actions could not be separated from the city condition in 1950's when 

there was food scarcity. 

Fifth, some of begal worn military attributes. This could be associated with 

Rera's policies that had been enacted at the central and regional levels, so that some 

frustrated former fighters were exposed to this policy and unemployed choose to be 

begal. Meanwhile, there were more street robbers appearing along with the unstable 

condition of the city. However, following the enactment of the Emergency Law of the 

Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 1951 on firearms, the number of street robbery 

decreased. This condition was also inseparable from some security operations 

performed by police and soldiers in line with the implementation of the law in 

Semarang. 

Sixth, not all street robbery target was woman. In carrying out their action, 

begal did not select their victims, they could be women or men. This also occured at 

the time of the street robbery for the seventh analysis. The street robbery also did not 

consider the time. It could happen any time. 

Seventh, most of street robbery cases occurred in Semarang were not handled 

well by police. Some cases even ended without any complete clarification. 

Meanwhile, from the data obtained, it showed that some street robbers could escape 

when they were already trapped by police or even after performing the action, even 

they used vehicles such as cars and bicycles. Therefore, it could be said that at that 

time, the police performance was considered weak in ensuring the citizen security. 



Eighth, the street robbers almost never worked individually. They always 

worked in groups. Minimum, there had be two persons performing the action. 

 

Burglary 

Locally, burglar in Semarang are often called as "maling". They were the ones who 

took others' property in secret (Tim Penyusun Kamus Pusat Pembinaan dan 

Pengembangan Bahasa, 1999:622). Those considered as maling were often simplified 

as burglar. However, the notion in the Legal Dictionary defines burglar as the ones 

who are against the law by taking others' property at night (Sudarsono, 1992:262). 

The first burglary case was published in Suara Merdeka daily, it took place at 

Gudang Kancil Mas Warehouse in Oosterwalstraat (around the Old Town area) on 

May 23, 1950 at five in the morning. The warehouse was visited by four burglars who 

entered the barn by breaking the tiles. The four burglars succeeded to take most of 

the textile materials which were estimated to be worth approximately f 20,000. A 

witness who knew the incident stated that he saw the burglar hide his loot not far 

from Gudang Kancil Mas, which was near to the railway carriage. After the 

investigation, the police managed to catch two of the four burglar and secured 15 

blocks of stolen textile (Suara Merdeka, 24 May 1950:2).2  

First, the burglary case above was one example of a case processed from the 

Suara Merdeka daily newspaper. Based on the comprehensive data analysis from 

Suara Merdeka daily, the year with the highest level of burglary cases occurred in 

1950 with nine cases. This great number could be associated with the excesses of the 

revolution that created a city situation that was not yet completely secure and stable. 

In addition, economic conditions that have not yet recovered led to the rise of 

burglary cases. While in the following years the intensity of burglary cases declined 

considerably compared to what happened in 1950, not even ten cases in a year. 

Second, most of the thieves preferred sharp weapons to firearms, although there 

were several burglary cases carrying firearms. This was because the thief did not 

directly come into contact with the victim as in the begal. Burglary cases were 

usually known the next day or after the victim made report to the police. However, 

the issue of firearms ownership was also special concern, because thieves who were 

considered not to require firearms turn out to have firearms easily in those days. 

Illegal firearms ownership was still occurred in 1950 before the Emergency Law of 

the Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 1951 enacted. 

Third, house was the most potential target for burglary because it was easier to 

break and enter into the house than warehouse or store that was definitely secured 

by a security officer. The houses were also dominantly located in the village. This 

also showed that the police have not maximized in securing the city, even into the 

villages. 

Fourth, burglars almost never worked individually. They always attempted to 

do burglary in group, minimum two people. 

 
2 One block can be defined as a roll of cloth of which the weight is around 25 kilograms with 

various length depending on the cloth thickness 



Fifth, the items taken by burglar varied greatly, ranging from merchandise, cars, 

luggage, jewelry, motor cycles, and so on. This showed that burglars were not picky 

in action. All the goods carried by the victim were grabbed. Such actions could not be 

separated from the city condition in 1950's when there was food scarcity.  

Sixth, none of perpetrators worn military attributes. This showed that most of 

burglar were purely civilians. The difficult economic conditions in those days caused 

a some of people attempt to do burglary. 

Seventh, all of burglar target was not women. In doing burglary, they did not 

point out to women, yet they prefer to take immobile goods to the owner or ones at 

home. 

Eighth, burglary tended to occur at night because many victims were less likely 

to be careless and security at night was not so maximized. Burglar could freely break 

down the contents of the house, warehouse, or store. 

Ninth, most of burglary cases could be handled by police but with long term 

period. They still could escape when they were trapped by citizens or police during 

the action. This shows that the use of firearms was more dangerous than the use of 

sharp weapons. Burglar having sharp weapon was easy to traced and caught by the 

police.  

 

Robbery 

Robbery's root word is robber which is defined as a person who commits to take 

others' property by coercion and violence (Tim Penyusun Kamus Pusat Pembinaan 

dan Pengembangan Bahasa, 1999:815). Suhartono equates robber with "gedor" in the 

banditry tradition in the countryside. The word "gedor" is identical with violence that 

is equalized by the act of knocking on the door loudly. Semarang, which borders 

with rural areas in east, south and west, is still familiar with the criminal terms. 

The first recorded robbery occurred at night on April 28, 1950. The robbers used 

army uniform and attacked a Chinese living in Jalan Pedamaran Number 39 A. The 

robber was three and two of them carried a revolver. They forced the host to hand 

over his valuable goods. Finally, the robbers managed to seize cash worth 

approximately f 400, a hand watch, and a key to the vault (Suara Merdeka, 29 April 

1950:2).  

First, the above example was one of the robbery cases that occurred in 1950. 

Based on data processed from Suara Merdeka daily newspaper, the year with the 

greatest number of robbery cases was in 1950 with 38 cases. This great number of 

cases could be associated with the excesses of the revolution creating a city situation 

that was not yet completely secure and stable. In addition, economic conditions that 

had not been recovered led to the rise of robbery cases. While in the following years 

the intensity of robbery cases declined considerably compared to what happened in 

1950, not even ten cases in a year. 

Second, the analysis was related to the use of firearms by the begal. In 1950, there 

were 29 cases then continued to decline in subsequent years, not even up to ten cases 

in a year. This condition occurred because of the implementation of Emergency Law 



of the Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 1951 on firearms that were applied 

strictly. For the perpetrator who was caught to have firearm would be threatened to 

have death penalty as the maximum penalty 

Third, house was the most potential target for burglary because it was easier to 

break and enter into the house than warehouse or store that definitely secured by a 

security officer. The houses were also dominantly located in the village. This also 

showed that the police had not been maximized in securing the city, even into the 

villages. 

Fourth, the robbers almost never worked individually. They always attempted 

to do robbery in group, minimal two people. 

Fifth, the items taken by robbers varied greatly, ranging from merchandise, cars, 

luggage, jewelry, motor cycles, and so on. This showed that the robbers are not picky 

in action. All the goods carried by the victim were grabbed. Such actions could not be 

separated from the city condition in 1950's when there was food scarcity. 

Sixth, some of robbers wore military attributes. This could be associated with 

Rera's policies that had been enacted at the central and regional levels, so that some 

frustrated former fighters were exposed to this policy and unemployed choose to be 

robber. Meanwhile, there were more robbers appearing along with the unstable 

condition of the city. However, following the enactment of the Emergency Law of the 

Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 1951 on firearms, the number of robbers 

decreased. This condition was also inseparable from some security operations 

performed by police and soldiers in line with the implementation of the law in 

Semarang. 

Seventh, not all of robbers’ target was not women. In doing robbery, robbers did 

not point out to women, yet they preferred to take immobile goods to the owner or 

ones at home. 

Eighth, the robbery action could happen any time. However, robbery tended to 

occur at night because many victims were less likely to be careless and security at 

night was not so maximized. Robber could freely break down the contents of the 

house, warehouse, or store. 

Ninth, most of robbery cases in Semarang could not be handled by police 

maximally. Some cases even ended without any complete clarification. Meanwhile, 

from the data obtained, it showed that some of the robbers could escape when they 

were already trapped by police or even after performing the action, even they used 

vehicles such as cars and bicycles. Therefore, it could be said that at that time, the 

police performance was considered weak in in ensuring the citizen security. 

First, from the various descriptions above, it could be discussed several things. 

First, there were three factors that caused to the emergence of the banditry in 

Semarang, the Rera policy was enacted since June 1950 and the scarcity of food, and 

government that had not been well ordered including the not maximum police 

performance.  

Second, the bandits in the above narratives were more dominated by pure 

bandits. Pure bandits were bandits from civil society who performed their actions to 



meet their life needs. They were very opportunistic. The bandits showed no 

principled attitude and they only looked for profit in the midst of unstable city 

conditions. In addition, in carrying out the action they worked in groups and 

attacked the victim any time. 

Third, not all the news contained in Suara Merdeka daily reported banditry in 

Semarang, while there was no source from the Semarang police. Therefore, the news 

about the bandit's recklessness with illegal firearms raised the concerns of Semarang 

residents. The circulation of illegal firearms had only been regulated after the 

emergence of emergency law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 1951 on 

firearms with the threat of death penalty for the owner. 

 

Countermeasures 

When the number of law enforcer that was not comparable with the banditry actions 

had disturbed citizens of Semarang, then the existence of private security 

organizations had a place in the middle of the citizens. The members of this 

organization mostly came from members of the army or fighters in the era of the 

Independence Revolution. 

The aim at involving former fighters was to protect them from being involved 

as bandits. Several former fighters initiated the formation of several private security 

organizations. All of these private security organizations were under the 

coordination of the Semarang Military Office. However, if the working area covered 

Central Java, the security organization had to be under the coordination of the 

Central Java Territory Military IV. In general, this security organization was divided 

into two types, namely private security organizations established independently by 

the former fighters and security organizations formed by the government named 

People's Defense Force. 

As already feared before, that Semarang was prone to illegal firearms trade. 

Even the circulation of weapons also involved law enforcer. One of the cases decided 

by the Semarang Military Court on November 7, 1955 was the misuse of firearms by 

a soldier with the initials Dj. The perpetrator holding the pistol and its bullet were 

charged with negligence in assuming responsibility for guarding and misusing 

firearms for the banditry action. The history of firearms ownership was disclosed by 

the perpetrator recognition that he obtained the gun when he carried out his duty in 

Ambon as a member of the Unity of DSS TT IV, Diponegoro Division. The gun was 

lent to a friend who was actually used it to do robbery in Weleri. For the 

Perpetrator’s actions, the court sentenced him to two years in prison. Punishment in 

accordance with the prosecutor's demands (Suara Merdeka, 8 November 1955:2). 

A similar case occurred again to former employees, with initial J, at the 

Semarang Police Office who chose to resign since October 1955. He domiciled at 

Jatingaleh. The perpetrator was arrested by police at a bus stop near to Apotik 

Bangkong because the Police found a Colt firearm. The illegal firearms according to 

the perpetrators were obtained by chance in 1949 in the Jatingaleh military gangway 

ditch. On the basis of the finding, the perpetrator did not report his findings to the 



police and chose to keep them. Another reason that the perpetrator delivered because 

he worked in the police station, so the firearms ownership was considered no harm. 

After he resigned from his work, the firearm was about to be sold to a fellow police 

officer for Rp 2,000 (Suara Merdeka, 4 December 1956:2). 

Another effort to anticipate illegal firearms circulation was by organizing a 

renewal of firearms registration in Semarang for the period of 1957. For firearms 

holders, either as owners or individual borrowers from general civil citizen were 

required to re-register their firearms to the Semarang Police Office at Jalan Bojong 

number 123/125 room number 11. This administrative office was open every working 

hour. When the owners processed the ownership permit, they were required to bring 

a license (fit) model of firearms of XVII A or B type, duty stamp paper (Dutch: 

plakzegel), and of course the firearms. Such registration took place from 1 January to 

31 March 1957 (Suara Merdeka, 27 December 1956:2). 

Not all appeals and enforcements of firearms registration were obeyed by 

Semarang residents. However, on March 5, 1957 the Military Police Corps performed 

search in Drogisterij (Netherlands: drug store) "Quick" located at Jalan Mataram, 

estimated to be a place for firearms, they found a number of firearms. In the search, it 

was found several firearms such as three dobel loops firearms, one chas, one mauser 

weapon, and a small gun (pistol dames ). Of all firearms found, firearms having 

license or registered legally for hunting purposes were only pistols dame. In 

addition, it also was found 38 rounds of 7.7 Jungle Rifle caliber bullets, two of them 

did not have license. The owner of Drogisterij "Quick" initials LThL was immediately 

arrested by Military Police Corps and his case was immediately submitted to the 

public prosecutors. On the other hand, the one with initial LWH who worked at the 

soap company Lies Industrie was also arrested for storing the illegal Bulldog gun in 

his car (Suara Merdeka, 6 March 1957:2). 

Furthermore, Semarang government through law enforcers, both police and 

soldiers also tried to prevent illegal firearms by checking every member of the 

security forces entering Semarang. Some soldiers were apparently carrying firearms 

without permission from their units. This case occurred to one of the soldiers from a 

unit in Jakarta who had just descended from the Zwarte Hond ship at Semarang 

Harbor on 27 March 1957 (Suara Merdeka, 6 March 1957:2). The firearms carried by 

the soldiers were eventually confiscated by law enforcers in Semarang.  

Army Commander of Territory IV of Central Java reminded and reiterated the 

law and regulation on the firearms ownership on June 13, 1957. The regulations 

contained in the Emergency Law No. 12 of 1951 on Provisional Rules of Interim 

Penalties contained in the State Gazette of 1951 Number 78. The regulation also 

stipulated the apparatus of either the police, military or certain civilian in Central 

Java who might own, try, keep, use, issue, enter, transport, and surrender firearms 

for the sake of personal safety. These officials included all members of the armed 

forces including civil officer of titular military, member of police officers, private 

persons assisting police and state troops' duties, and civil servants from subdistrict 

head to the upper position. In addition, there were still some official servants, such as 



imprisonment, forestry, pawnshops, traffic, duties and excise, PTT, state plantations, 

volcanoes, state mining, state banks, state treasuries, and state courts, both 

prosecutors and Clerk who had the right to have a firearm. In the meantime, there 

were still people who had certain jobs given permission to own firearms, such as 

amateur and professional hunters, licensed hunting gunmen, and repairmen of 

hunting weapons who must also be licensed. For the Sultanate Palace of Yogyakarta, 

Surakarta, Mangkunegaran, and Paku Alaman also got the privilege of owning 

firearms (Suara Merdeka, 14 June 1957:2). The limitation made by the Central Java 

Military Ruler aimed to stop the circulation of illegal firearms that were still in 

circulation and still easy to obtain.  

Police Residency Semarang and Semarang at the beginning of each year always 

held a regular registration of firearms. For firearms holders, either as individual 

owners or borrowers from general civil population were obliged to re-register their 

firearms to the Residency Police Station / Semarang on Jalan Bojong 123/125 number 

11. This administrative office was open every working day from Eight to 12 noon, 

while every Friday is only till eleven o'clock in the morning. When processing 

ownership permit, the owners were required to bring a license (pas) model of 

firearms of type XVII A or B, duty stamp paper (Dutch: plakzegel), and of course the 

fire weapon. The registration took place from 1 January to 31 March 1958 (Suara 

Merdeka, 14 December 19572). 

Police conducted various arrest modes to detain the aggression of the bandits. 

There were three strategies in overcoming the bandits in Semarang. First, the result 

of cooperation among local polices around Semarang.  

Mobbrig Police Action to detain the movement of MMC members suspected to 

be screwed Semarang continued to be performed. In the early hours of January 2, 

1954 Mobrrig Police and Boja Limbangan Police carried out patrol and 

reconnaissance on unexpected MMC members in the area. Police finally managed 

arrests while they were watching a ketoprak show in the hamlet of Watulawang, Boja 

District, Kendal. The arrest began, when police began to dissolve the show by firing a 

gun into the air and warning the MMC sympathizers to surrender.  

There were no casualties in the incident. The MMC sympathizers had fought 

back with fire, but because they were trapped by police forces, finally they 

surrendered. There were 10 of 14 members of the MMC arrested and one of them 

was woman. Four others were released after a deep investigation; it was found that 

they were not involved in the MMC movement. The evidence seized from the arrest 

was a houderbak (Dutch: silinder to keep the bullet) with 25 bullets and important 

papers. Five arrested people proved to be members of MMC. While the rest allegedly 

acted as an introductory messenger of information, which could be known from the 

contents of a letter from MMC officials who hid in Mijen. Ten MMC sympathizers 

were eventually arrested by the police (Suara Merdeka, 6 January 1954:2). 

Second, reconnaissance. Semarang Police continued to conduct surveillance 

against gedor plotters who attacked the workshop Excelsior Semarang. The 

workshop suffered heavy losses because the merchandise was seized by the gedor. 



Total loss was approximately 19,000. Three of gedor were arrested by police on May 

25, 1950 (Suara Merdeka, 26 May 1950:2).  

Third, the development of previous cases. Two police officers from the Central 

Java Provincial Police Office, Ong Tiong Giem and Kardjono managed to uncover the 

crime of gangster bandit that had been troubling residents in Semarang and in other 

cities in Central Java. Their actions such as street robbery, robbery, burglary, and 

other criminal banditry by using firearms had been paralyzed. This was the biggest 

arrest. 

Sutrisno who became bengkol as well as the one who prepared and planned the 

banditry was successfully arrested in Semarang after a series of surveillance 

conducted by the police. Together with his bandit friends, he was suspected to 

launch his action in a house on Jalan dr. Cipto. The house belonged to a food 

entrepreneur who also supplied logistics needs in prison houses in Semarang. In the 

arrest on January 3, 1958, there were nine bandits successfully arrested besides 

Sutrisno, namely Idi, Bertus Ong, Tjioe Siong Liem, Johny Sumarno, Oei Sing Hien, 

Lie Tjing Hien, Mulyono and Modhalil. In the arrest operation, FN revolver was 

seized from Sutrisno's hand (Suara Merdeka, 4 January 1958:2). 

 

Conclusion 

Based on the above descriptions and referring to the problems formulated in this 

article, it can be drawn up the following conclusions. First, the roots of banditry in 

Semarang emerged due to economic difficulties that occurred in the early 1950s, so to 

meet their life needs, the banditry targeted all the victims without any exceptions. 

The economic difficulties were shown from the distribution of food, clothing, shelter 

that did not work properly. It was coupled with various social problems occurring in 

Semarang, such as the emergence of unemployment, homeless, refugees, and 

criminality.  

Second, the origin of bandits in Semarang was dominated more from the 

villages in Semarang. This condition could be understood because the citizens were 

not used to live in subsistence way and they only rely on the trade and services 

sector, so they have no other choice when experiencing economic pressure. They 

were forced to become bandits, such as thief, street robber, burglar, and robber. In 

addition, they moved more dominant in groups that were not well organized.  

Third, in order to deal with and overcome the actions of the bandits who 

troubled Semarang, the local government, police, military, and citizens tended to be 

reactionary. They only gave responds after banditry cases had occurred, so the 

repressive nature was preferred in overcoming banditry in Semarang. This short-

term countermeasures option was as a consequence of the emergence of a new 

government during post-war of Independence requiring immediate the restoration of 

conditions. Consequently, the success of short-term banditry handling was seen only 

from various security operations, firearms control, and bandits arrest. 

 

 



References 

Abdullah, Taufik. Bab I Pengantar ke Sejarah sebagai Disiplin Ilmu, paper presented 

at Seminar Nasional Pekan Cinta Sejarah, Pontianak, 18-22 November 2013.   

Budi, Langgeng Sulistyo, 1997/1998. Permasalahan Sosial Perkotaan pada Periode 

Revolusi: Kriminalitas di Yogyakarta 1947-1948, Lembaran Sejarah, Vol. 1, No. 2.  

Djamhari, Saleh (2012). A. Kegelisahan Pascaperang, in Abdullah, Taufik and A. B. 

Lapian (ed.) Indonesia dalam Arus Sejarah: Pascarevolusi. Jakarta: Ichtiar Baru van 

Hoeve and Ministry of Education and Culture of Indonesia.    

Fauzi, M. (2005). Lain di front, lain pula di kota: Jagoan dan Bajingan di Jakarta 

Tahun 1950-an, in Colombijn, F. (ed.) Kota Lama Kota Baru: Sejarah Kota-Kota di 

Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Ombak. 

Gove, Philip Babcock (1976). Websters Third New International Dictionary. 

Massachusetts: G.& C. Merriam Co., in Suhartono (1995). Bandit-Bandit 

Pedesaan: Studi Historis 1850-1942 di Jawa. Yogyakarta: Aditya Media. 

Ibrahim, Julianto (2004). Bandit dan Pejuang di Simpang Bengawan: Kriminalitas dan 

Kekerasan Masa Revolusi di Surakarta. Wonogiri: Bina Citra Pustaka. 

Kuntowijoyo (2005). Pengantar Ilmu Sejarah. Yogyakarta: PT Bentang Pustaka.   

Lucas, Anton E. (1989). Peristiwa Tiga Daerah: Revolusi dalam Revolusi, translated by 

Pustaka Utama Grafiti. Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti. 

Notosusanto, Nugroho (1964). Hakekat Sejarah dan Metode Sejarah. Jakarta: Mega Book 

Store dan Pusat Sejarah Angkatan Bersenjata.  

Poeponegoro, Marwati Djoened and Nugroho Notosusanto (2010). Sejarah Nasional 

Indonesia VI: Zaman Jepang dan Zaman Republik Indonesia (± 1942-1998). Jakarta: 

Balai Pustaka. 

Purwanto, B. (2005). Kekerasan dan Kriminalitas di Kota pada Saat Transisi: 

Kotagede, Yogyakarta pada Akhir Masa Kolonial dan Awal Kemerdekaan, in 

Colombijn, F. (ed.) Kota Lama Kota Baru: Sejarah Kota-Kota di Indonesia. 

Yogyakarta: Ombak. 

Ricklefs, M. C. (1992). Sejarah Indonesia Modern, translated by Dharmono 

Hardjowidjono. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. 

Sudarsono (1999). Kamus Hukum. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. 

Tim Penyusun Kamus Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa (1999). Kamus 

Besar Bahasa Indonesia Edisi Kedua. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. 

“2500 Anak-Anak Tentara Pelajar akan Kembali ke Masyarakat”, Suara Merdeka, 21 

April 1950.  

“3 Orang Kaki Tangan Penggedor Ketangkap”, Suara Merdeka, 26 May 1950. 

“Dibegal Di Jalan Umum Duwet”, Suara Merdeka, 6 May 1950. 

“Dompet Merapi”, Suara Merdeka, 21 January 1954. 

“Kalau Gerombolan Nonton Kethoprak”, Suara Merdeka, 6 January 1954. 

“Kesukaran Tentang Air Minum”, Suara Merdeka, 15 August 1950.  

“Keterangan Wiwoho: Tentang Pengembalian Jawa Tengah”, Suara Merdeka, 11 

February 1950.  

“Komplotan Bandit-Bandit Ulung Dibekuk Polisi”, Suara Merdeka, 4 January 1958. 



“Lagi ‘Kancil Mas’ Dibongkar Pencuri”, Suara Merdeka, 24 May 1950.  

“Lebih Kurang 10.000 Orang Tentara akan Kembali ke Masyarakat”, Suara Merdeka, 

26 May 1950.  

“Lebih Kurang 70.000 Orang akan Kembali ke Masyarakat”, Suara Merdeka, 5 June 

1950. 

“Menjual Senjata Api”, Suara Merdeka, 4 December 1956. 

“Menyimpan Senjata Tanpa Izin”, Suara Merdeka, 8 November 1955.  

“Merapi Tetap Berbahaya”, Suara Merdeka, 21 January 1954. 

“Mereka yang Diizinkan Membawa Senjata Api”, Suara Merdeka, 14 June 1957. 

“Pendaftaran Senjata Api”, Suara Merdeka, 14 December 1957. 

“Perampok di Pedamaran 39 A”, Suara Merdeka, 29 April 1950.  

“Ramalan Hujan”, Suara Merdeka, 16 September 1952.  

“Rampok Menembak Mati Pegawai DPU di Siang Hari”, Suara Merdeka, 28 January 

1954. 

“Senjata-Senjata Gelap Ketemu di Semarang”, Suara Merdeka, 6 March 1957. 

“Turun dari Kapal Senjata Disita”, Suara Merdeka, 28 March 1957. 


