By Months: Maria Jufereva-Skuratovski

The speaker criticizes the previous state of affairs, where the police were forced to operate under vague rules that failed to meet constitutional requirements. He indirectly addresses opponents concerned about the restriction of individual rights, dismissing their arguments by stressing that the effect of the cameras is strictly limited and cannot be compared to the suffering endured by a victim of crime.

There is no direct criticism of opponents; the criticism is instead aimed at earlier uncertainty and the slow decision-making process. The speaker emphasizes that the new rules must be clear and they must not change every four years, hinting at previous instability.

The text lacks direct attacks or criticism aimed at specific opponents or political groups. The criticism focuses instead on the clarity of the policy and risk assessment, rather than individuals or political antagonisms.

Criticism is directed at the shortcomings in implementing the government's policy (the car tax) and ensuring the security of e-elections. In terms of foreign policy, Russia has been clearly identified as the adversary, which is accused of waging a well-planned and centrally managed information war. It also seeks clarification regarding the Center Party's position on completely abandoning e-elections.

The opposition is aimed more at the procedure and the lack of clarity regarding roles, rather than at a specific individual, questioning why Parliament needs to submit a proposal to the government. The criticism is procedural and of moderate intensity, seeking clarification on Parliament's actual role.

The primary criticism is aimed at the Centre Party concerning the bank tax bill, which has been labeled populist, superficial, and drafted without serious analysis. Furthermore, the speaker disputed Riina Solman's claim regarding the flags in Lasnamäe, as well as Henn Põlluaas's assertions concerning the reliability of citizens of Russian nationality.