By Plenary Sessions: Tanel Kiik

The speaker employs a combatively critical tone, consistently putting forth sharp questions regarding the government's tax policy and priorities. The rhetoric is emotionally charged, yet grounded in specific figures and facts (for instance, the allocation of 4.2 million euros for specialized social care versus over 100 million euros directed toward the wealthy). The addresses are lengthy and well-structured, incorporating both direct inquiries to experts and broader political evaluations, concluding with a categorical recommendation that the government either change its course or step down.

The speaker employs a direct and critical tone, starting by acknowledging the minister's honesty but quickly moving on to systemic criticism. The rhetoric is analytical and logical, relying on concrete examples such as productivity growth and employment indicators. The speaker uses rhetorical questions and hesitates before using the word "radical," which demonstrates a cautious yet determined approach.

The speaker employs confrontational and critical rhetoric, accusing the Prime Minister and the government of a patronizing attitude and suffering from the "occupational hazard" of believing they are smarter than everyone else. The rhetoric is emotionally charged, utilizing phrases such as "a herd of stupid idiots" and referencing the government's ironic jokes. Simultaneously, the speaker also presents logical arguments, demanding clarification regarding contradictions in labor policy and criticizing the narrow composition of the business council.

The speaker employs an optimistic and encouraging tone, calling on colleagues to support the family benefits bill ("I encourage you and everyone else to be optimistic"). The rhetoric is factual and substantiated by historical data, citing specific figures on the evolution of these benefits since 2015. The style is diplomatic, yet simultaneously critical of the current political culture, stressing the necessity for a higher standard of political culture and the potential for supporting opposition proposals.

The speaker employs a diplomatic and inquiring tone, emphasizing shared interests ("in the interest of all of us") and terms of respect ("Esteemed," "Honored"). The rhetoric is structured and formal, focusing on logical arguments rather than emotional appeals. The speaker poses direct questions regarding accountability while simultaneously maintaining a constructive approach.

The speaker uses a polite and deferential tone, addressing the audience as "Esteemed Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu" and "Dear Kilvar," and expressing thanks for the cooperation. The rhetoric is constructive and appreciative, emphasizing the effective management and clear communication of the Financial Supervision Authority. The speaking style is reflective, focusing on both assessing the past and addressing future challenges.

The speaker employs diplomatic yet resolute rhetoric, combining courteous addresses ("Respected," "Honorable Minister") with critical assessments of the government's performance. The style is argumentative and highly detailed, relying on specific facts and examples concerning healthcare issues. Emotional appeals are balanced by logical arguments, particularly highlighting the problems of patient waiting lists and out-of-pocket costs. The speaker utilizes conditional support and a cautionary tone, promising to back a future vote of no confidence if their demands are not met.

Kiik posed his questions in a polite yet direct manner, focusing on facts and specific steps. He stressed the broader interests of society and the importance of trust.

They employ a diverse rhetorical approach, utilizing procedural questions regarding the Riigikogu's rules of procedure, humorous critiques about the absence of colleagues, and straightforward questions concerning political decisions. Overall, a constructive tone is maintained.