By Plenary Sessions: Rene Kokk

The style is combative and critical, aimed directly at the ministers and challenging their arguments. The speaker frequently employs rhetorical questions and highlights the "incompleteness" or insufficient argumentation of the government's actions. The tone is formal yet sharp, focusing on logical and procedural deficiencies, especially in the justifications provided for draft legislation.

The language used is formal, direct, and interrogative, repeatedly addressing the minister for clarification ("Honorable Chairman! Dear Minister!"). The style is analytical and focuses on logical reasoning, demanding knowledge regarding both political decisions (the consideration of voluntariness) and procedural history (the expansion of formal rights). He/She uses rhetorical questions, emphasizing the magnitude of the increases ("very, very large").

The rhetorical style is combative, ironic, and emotionally charged, employing strong language and rhetorical questions ("For heaven's sake, what kind of approach is the government taking!"). The speaker uses paradoxes (schools are demolished, but prisons remain) to ridicule the government's policy and issues direct calls for the minister to go meet with local residents. The speech was reactive, prompted by the minister's responses.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and occasionally confrontational, employing colorful and blunt expressions such as "siga ja kägu" (pig and cuckoo) and referencing the minister's habit of calling others "stupid and blockheads." The tone is skeptical and accusatory, centered on emphasizing administrative illogicality and waste. The appeals are primarily logical, though they are delivered with significant frustration.

The rhetorical style is critical and direct, including personal addresses to the minister (Jürgen) and recommendations to "keep his feet on the ground" and talk about "real issues." Both logical arguments (loss of tax revenue) and an ideological attack are utilized, accusing the government of adopting social democratic ideas. The speaker employs figurative language, referring to a previous failure as "stepping on the rake."

The style is sharp, confrontational, and critical, employing strong accusations (e.g., "with tunnel vision," "things have gone so messed up"). The speaker uses both emotional appeals (referencing thousands of people in need) and sarcasm, particularly regarding management skills and education, to criticize the direction the country's leadership is taking.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and emotional, expressing disbelief and indignation over the content of the draft bill ("Unbelievable!"). Both logical appeals (procedural questions) and emotional appeals ("think with your head and heart") are utilized, and reference is made to simple common sense.

The speaker's tone is worried and critical, expressing "great concern" over the government's inability to see the "big picture." Direct questions and logical arguments are employed to emphasize the seriousness of rising service costs and the demographic crisis. The style is formal, yet it contains sharp criticism directed at the government's inaction.

The style is formal and critical, emphasizing the current relevance of the topic and the government's procedural delay in providing a response ("over a year late"). Logical arguments are employed, based on road safety statistics (the number of traffic fatalities is rising) and economic necessity, linking infrastructure directly to the economy's bloodstream. The speaker demands clear and concrete answers to the questions posed from the minister.