By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The political focus is on ensuring national defense and security, emphasizing the government's early warning about a catastrophe arriving in 3–4 years. The speaker sharply criticizes the procedural failure of the legislation (holding the wrong ministry accountable) and demands immediate measures. The focus is strongly results-oriented, highlighting the administration's inability to prepare for the crisis.

The political focus is centered on issues within legal practice and lawmaking, stressing the necessity of balancing personal data protection with the accessibility of public information. The position takes a moderately critical view of current practices, particularly where unreasonably lengthy access restrictions are placed on public information. The approach is primarily performance-driven, concentrating on the inefficient implementation of existing legislation.

The speaker positions himself as a member of the Isamaa party, highlighting their support for free, Estonian-language higher education within the standard study period. The primary focus is performance-driven, scrutinizing the efficacy of the government's actions in supporting the economy and development initiatives during challenging times. The stance is moderately oppositional, centered on criticizing the government's funding decisions.

The political focus is heavily directed towards increasing the transparency and accountability of government institutions, criticizing the casual classification of documents for internal departmental use. He argues that current administrative practices have become a pervasive problem that obstructs public access to information. Particular emphasis is placed on the activities of the Ministry of Finance and the Tax and Customs Board, demanding a swift change in administrative practices. Furthermore, the issue of consumer protection is raised in connection with disinformation provided by Elektrilevi regarding service restoration.

The political position focuses on the procedural and legal basis of the government's financial decisions (the budget strategy and the 0.25% measure). The stance is inquisitive, demanding clarity regarding the level of authority for the decision and its period of validity, which points to concerns about the transparency and propriety of the decision-making process. The framing is strongly procedural and policy-based.

The politician strongly emphasizes the necessity of addressing the issue of humiliating families or women, stressing that even a single incident is unacceptable. While he is not convinced that the proposed solution is perfect, he supports the fundamental principle of resolving the problem. The focus is value-driven, centered on clarifying the intent of the legislature and the underlying cause of the legal issue concerning family births and the requirement for DNA tests.

The politician is positioning himself as a strong critic of the government’s shaky and untrustworthy handling of the State Budget Strategy (RES). Emphasis is placed on the government’s inability to ensure the soundness of state finances, citing the inclusion and subsequent removal of a phantom revenue line item worth 400 million euros. This position is clearly results-oriented, focusing on the inconsistencies in the government's actions and the breaking of promises.

The political focus is on the transparency of legislation and the lack of government consensus regarding the amendment of the Cultural Endowment Act. Specifically, emphasis is placed on the need for assurance concerning the funding support for the construction of the national broadcasting building, which points to a procedural and policy-based approach. The position is moderately critical due to the ambiguity between the draft bill and the explanatory memorandum.