By Plenary Sessions: Tõnis Lukas

The main criticism is aimed at the government and the prime minister, accusing them of shirking responsibility regarding the teachers' salary increase and failing to provide formal legal decisions to back the agreements. Criticism also extends to the mechanism used for distributing the differentiation fund, which incentivizes local governments to keep qualified teachers at a lower pay grade.

The primary opposition is directed at the government as a whole, and specifically Minister Liisa Pakosta, who is being criticized for a lack of trust, obfuscation, and strategically ill-conceived decisions. The criticism is intense and focuses both on the political mandate and procedural deficiencies (the hiding of reports). No willingness to compromise is being shown; instead, they are demanding the immediate resignation of the government.

The criticism is aimed at negative budgetary policy tendencies in science funding (the scattering of funds between ministries) and the pressure from real estate development targeting the Tallinn Song Festival Grounds. Organizational decisions that threaten the continuity of cultural tradition are also criticized (e.g., the loss of scholarships for choir conductors). The criticism is policy-driven and structural.

The primary criticism is aimed at the Prime Minister and the Reform Party, questioning the PM's party loyalty and the government's immigration policy. The criticism is moderately intense, featuring both personal barbs and policy-based opposition to increased immigration. The government's solutions regarding the labor shortage are considered insufficient or misguided.

The opposition is aimed at those who support joining the Ottawa Convention and complete disarmament, whom he accuses of the unrealistic attempt to be "more diligent on paper." The criticism is policy-driven and strategic, stressing that such actions would pose a significant threat to the civilian population. Specifically, it is noted that Isamaa was the only party that voted against the convention in 2004.

The speaker is fiercely opposed to the ruling coalition, criticizing them both for failing to deliver on political promises and for procedural delays (specifically, the lack of a draft language law). The criticism is policy-driven, accusing the government of weakening the status of the Estonian language and abandoning the target salary for teachers. The speaker also notes that the coalition voted down the necessary amendments proposed by Isamaa.

Criticism is aimed primarily at the system's deficiencies and the lack of coordination between local municipalities, which results in inefficient and haphazard decisions. It is emphasized that some investments have become futile, indicating dissatisfaction with the current planning structure.

The criticism is aimed at the government and the ministry for a lack of systematic approach, insufficient planning, and the failed implementation of reforms. Specific examples cited include the haphazard establishment of state high schools and the absence of proper consultations. A particularly strong point of criticism is the attitude, rooted in an inferiority complex, that permits the role of the Estonian language in higher education to diminish. The critique focuses on policy and procedure.