By Plenary Sessions: Rene Kokk

The criticism is aimed at the direction of energy policy, as presented by the government or its spokesperson, which places a strong focus on wind turbines. The opposition is policy-based, suggesting that the current focus is ineffective and amounts to "playing a one-sided game."

The criticism is directed at the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Forces, and the KRA, who are accused of neglecting the indexation of reservists' remuneration between 2018 and 2022. The speaker is sharply opposed to the proposal to reject the draft bill, stressing that members of the Riigikogu always have the option to submit amendments. He opposes those who "call black white" and claim that nothing can be changed.

The main adversaries are the government (via the minister whose plans regarding foreign prisoners are being criticized) and, especially, the Eesti 200 political party. The criticism is intense, focusing both on political plans and ethical violations, accusing the party of gaining political benefit through fraud.

The main opponent is the ruling coalition, which is being criticized both for its policies (tax hikes, education cuts) and for its lack of procedural legitimacy. The criticism is intense, accusing the government of attacking the people and demanding that decisions be made that the public understands and finds beneficial. The opposition is absolute, calling into question the government's very right to push decisions through.

The opposition is aimed at the individuals or institutions who pushed the COVID-19 vaccine, despite insufficient research and inaccurate claims regarding its efficacy. The criticism is intense and addresses ethical accountability, as well as the fact that earlier arguments (such as preventing infection) have proven to be incorrect.

The opposition is aimed at "some political parties" and specifically at six committee members who voted against the draft bill that would increase ministerial accountability. The criticism is procedural, accusing the opponents of taking an unconstructive approach and suggesting they might not have understood the substance of the bill under discussion. Valdo Randpere is criticized separately because of the context of his questions.