By Plenary Sessions: Tanel Tein

Not enough data.

There is no direct confrontation expressed with specific political groupings. The criticism is aimed at the procedure, questioning whether sufficient inclusion was achieved during the preparation of the bill and whether the risks were adequately assessed.

The criticism is directed at the existing administrative structure, which combines culture and sport under one umbrella, and not at the minister personally. The opposition is procedural and results-oriented because the current arrangement does not ensure sufficient speed in handling sports-related issues.

There is too little data.

Direct criticism is aimed at previous political whims and one-off decisions that have hampered the development of sports, rather than specific political forces. The country’s difficult economic situation is criticized, as is the political reluctance towards new plans that require state backing. There is also indirect criticism that the state invests in later-stage intervention (for example, remedial training for physically unfit youth in the military) instead of focusing on early prevention.

The opposition targets the supporters of the major hospital project, questioning their plans and asking whether the project is truly necessary. The criticism is politically motivated, emphasizing that private healthcare could already fulfill part of the major hospital's role more efficiently.

The main opposition is directed at the bank tax policy, as it sends a negative signal to the banking sector. The criticism is policy-based and focuses on the fact that implementing the tax hinders the entry of new banks and the development of internal competition. The opposition is clear, but the tone is solution-oriented.

The address avoids direct criticism or confrontation, instead posing a question to the government representative (the minister) that demands information and solutions concerning the management of state assets.

The opposition is directed at the economic policy assumptions made by the ministry or the government, particularly regarding the net fiscal benefit derived from raising excise duties. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, demanding the disclosure of the calculations underpinning the policy and their comparison with alternative scenarios.

The criticism is directed at earlier government decisions to cut funding, which reduced support for extracurricular activities, although it acknowledges that the goal (raising teachers' salaries) was noble. It relays the criticism from the Centre Party faction regarding changes in the Ministry of Culture's funding (EKSL and Jõud), but supports the ministry's stance that the changes were necessary and aimed at broader inclusion.

The criticism is directed at the inefficiency of the current system, particularly concerning the tax-exempt donation law, which "is not working today," and the inadequate equipment in school gymnasiums. Specific political opponents are not named; instead, the focus is on highlighting deficiencies in national planning and in parents' understanding of children's sports education.

The confrontation manifests in challenging the government's policy, raising questions about the inefficiency of the existing large-scale investment system ("Doesn't this existing system work well?"). The criticism is directed at clarifying the content and effectiveness of the policy, and is not personal.

There is no direct opposition or criticism towards political opponents. Andre Hanimägi’s departure from the Centre Party faction is mentioned only as a neutral procedural justification for appointing a new member to the ERR council.

None. This address is aimed at the head of government for the purpose of presenting a constructive policy question, not for criticism.