By Plenary Sessions: Madis Kallas

Direct confrontation is not expressed, but critical questions are being raised regarding the commission's decision not to support moving forward with the issue of cyber damages in its current form, citing damages incurred that run into the millions.

The criticism is directed at the actions of the Tallinn City Government (run by a single party), which are deepening regional inequality, specifically focusing on the debate surrounding kindergarten place fees. Ministries are also criticized for their inability to resolve bureaucratic problems within the Sports Act. Furthermore, the speaker expresses concern regarding government plans that may reduce workers' rights, and criticizes the inappropriate conduct of fellow colleagues (Anti Allas, Urmas Reinsalu) in parliament.

The objection is aimed at the government’s (or the minister’s) decision to continue using a costlier and more complicated procedure, which runs contrary to the expert assessment. The criticism is procedural and focuses on inefficiency, repeatedly requesting justification for why the chosen path is preferred. There are no personal attacks involved.

The speaker expresses skepticism regarding the basis of the claim presented by the other speaker, asking whether it relies on assumptions or concrete indications. There is no direct confrontation or personal criticism.

The opposition's stance is directed against the actions of the government and the prime minister, particularly concerning the deficiencies in the coalition agreement. The criticism targets political choices (the omission of ideas) and the interpretation of previous positions, demanding a clear response. The speaker defends their party's views on tax matters against the prime minister's interpretation.

The criticism is directed at the current logic governing airport management, where regional and commercial airports are grouped together on the same expense line. There is no direct political opposition or personal attacks; instead, the focus is on highlighting structural injustice.

The criticism is directed at the responsible minister and the ministries, citing passivity (the lack of supplementary budget proposals) and an inability to mitigate public disappointment. The criticism is focused on policy and procedures rather than being personal, demanding concrete steps (the initiation of an investigation) to ensure accountability.