By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The criticism is aimed at the actions of the governing body, faulting them for delaying legislation and committing procedural errors (lack of support from agencies, designating the wrong ministry). The opposition is both procedural and policy-based, highlighting the government's failure to respond to national defense early warnings.

The criticism is directed at the government's actions and deficiencies in legal practice, not at specific political opponents. The questions are addressed to the minister to gain clarity on the scope of the problems and the progress of their resolution, highlighting the inconsistencies between the law and actual practice.

The speaker is clearly in opposition to the current government, referring to it as a government that Isamaa is not a part of. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, questioning the government's priorities regarding the use of Transition Fund resources to boost innovation.

The main criticism is directed at government institutions (the Ministry of Finance, the Estonian Tax and Customs Board (MTA), and the Ministry of Social Affairs), accusing them of a lack of transparency and the abuse of administrative practices. The criticism is both procedural and political, emphasizing that documents are being classified without substantive reason, and also pointing to a lack of communication between ministers. The criticism is particularly sharp regarding the decision by the Tax and Customs Board to classify a letter concerning Kaja Kallas’s income declarations for 75 years.

The opposition is directed at the ruler (the government), criticizing or calling into question the procedural basis and validity of their financial decisions (the 0.25% measure). The criticism is purely procedural and policy-based.

There is no direct opposition or criticism aimed at political opponents. The criticism is instead directed at the ambiguity of the legal situation, which necessitated DNA testing, seeking clarification on whether this was the legislator's intent.

The main criticism is directed at the head of government and the Minister of Finance (Mart Võrklaev), focusing on the administration's fiscal incompetence and political untrustworthiness. The criticism is intense, accusing the government of filling the budget strategy with empty placeholders and enacting a sharp reversal of policy. The opposition is based on both policy and procedure, casting doubt on the government's promises concerning new taxes.

The criticism targets the lack of clarity and potential absence of consensus within the government or the commission concerning the amendments to the Cultural Endowment Act. The objection is procedural, focusing on the ambiguity of the draft legislation and the responses given by the presenter, rather than being a personal attack.