By Plenary Sessions: Tõnis Lukas

Total Sessions: 4

Fully Profiled: 4

2024-12-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, press briefing
The political focus is on ensuring the priority of culture within the national development plan, while criticizing the Ministry of Economic Affairs for presenting the Tourism Development Plan 2035 without a cultural component. The speaker's position strongly emphasizes the economic and societal importance of culture, asserting that the government as a whole does not value culture highly enough. This stance is both policy-driven and value-based, stressing the need to overturn the secondary role currently assigned to culture.
2024-12-11
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
Politically, the speaker focuses on the quality and methodological soundness of early childhood education, emphasizing the necessity of grouping children according to their linguistic preparedness. He is strongly opposed to the stance taken by the Ministry of Education and Research, which branded the Isamaa party's proposed amendment as discriminatory, arguing that this stance twists the constitution and discriminates against ethnic Estonians. The speaker's position is deeply value-based, prioritizing the child's development and welfare.
2024-12-11
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fourth session, press briefing.
The speaker's primary political stance is the revocation of voting rights for citizens of aggressively acting states (Russia, Belarus), which he deems essential and a step in the right direction. A second key issue is protecting the electoral process from Russian hybrid and digital attacks. These positions are strongly value-based, focusing on national security and the integrity of elections.
2024-12-04
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The political stance supports raising the compulsory education age to 18, considering it a socially valuable objective. However, strong opposition has been raised against implementing the bill, given that vocational education is underfunded and imposing massive additional responsibilities without supplementary funding is misleading. The position is clearly policy-driven, focusing on the disparity between the stated goals and the available financial resources.