By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

Combative and pointed, employing ironic metaphors ("three-tongued balalaika," "Chinese erhu instrument") to criticize the stability and nature of the government. The tone is demanding and persistent, requiring direct answers from the Prime Minister regarding both previously unanswered questions and new administrative issues.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and direct, particularly when contrasting with colleagues' viewpoints and previous policy. The style balances logical arguments (principles of market economy, cost accounting) with strong emotional accusations (market distortion, ideology, stupidity). The speaker frequently uses rhetorical questions and references to personal contacts (producers who have called) to substantiate their positions.

The style is formal, yet demanding and critical, particularly concerning the Prime Minister's responses. The speaker relies on logical juxtaposition and specific financial data to demonstrate the inefficiency of the government's policy. In the follow-up question, he criticizes the Prime Minister for the lack of a substantive answer, noting that "short answers do not do you credit," and demands a specific explanation.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and ironic, addressing the Prime Minister directly. Rhetorical questions are employed to highlight the government's evasion of responsibility and to cast doubt on the future conduct of the new coalition (the Reform Party and Eesti 200).

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, urgent, and frustrated, describing the situation as "sad" and "completely unacceptable." Both logical arguments (such as financial examples and the views of scientists and entrepreneurs) and emotional appeals are employed to highlight the lack of accountability. Simple, everyday analogies are used to clarify these positions, such as the examples of stealing bread and buying a loaf.