By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The criticism is directed toward the proposer of the draft bill, demanding clarification regarding ambiguous terminology and the source of the cited conventions. There is no direct confrontation with political opponents; the criticism is procedural and substantive, focusing on the deficiencies of the draft bill.

There is no direct opposition or personal criticism aimed at the minister; however, the speaker is calling into question the system's current functionality and priorities. The criticism focuses on policy deficiencies, such as unequal access and the persistent problem of long waiting lists for treatment. This opposition is manifested through the raising of questions and the analysis of the policy's content.

The criticism is aimed at the Culture Committee and the parliamentary majority, who are pushing through an unreasonable legislative amendment, and at the Speaker of the Riigikogu for the way the interpellation was handled. The Ministry of Culture is also criticized for funding the Jõhvi film campus without adequate analysis or stakeholder involvement, thereby creating a risk of duplication. The criticism is both procedural and policy-based.

The primary criticism is aimed at the Ministry of Education and Research, accusing them of a lack of competence (e.g., hiring academician Aaviksoo to dissect the core issue) and insufficient funding of reforms. The criticism is policy-driven and intense, especially concerning the replacement of compulsory schooling and the unfair funding model.