By Plenary Sessions: Heljo Pikhof

The speaker's style is direct and insistent, emphasizing the "critical importance" of the subject from a regional policy standpoint. The address to the minister is formal and centers on logical argumentation, demanding concrete visions and timelines.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and urgent, openly expressing embarrassment regarding the minister's claims. Logical argumentation is employed, contrasting the government's positions with the opinions of the Director General of the PPA (Police and Border Guard Board) and the South Estonian Prefect, thereby emphasizing the decline in security.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and urgent, relying heavily on logical arguments, research, and statistics. The speaker uses the format of an inquiry to present a systematic analysis of the problem of educational inequality, emphasizing the lack of policy and the need for targeted solutions. The tone is concerned, particularly regarding social stratification and children's mental health indicators.

The rhetorical style is persuasive and analytical, combining statistical data (e.g., comparison of working hours) with social and emotional arguments (health, family relationships). The speaker utilizes historical context (the idea has been circulating for 15 years) and is highly critical of government representatives, whom they accuse of lacking knowledge and merely "opining" in the commission. The presentation is formal, but includes personal observations regarding the Estonian "Lutheran work ethic."

The tone is respectful when addressing the minister, yet simultaneously demanding and insistent, criticizing the prolonged delay of the issue. The speaker utilizes personal history and references to past actions to establish credibility. The appeal is logical (a long time has passed), and the address concludes by expressing an optimistic belief that a solution will be found.

The tone is generally formal and procedural, especially in committee reports, but it becomes sharp and critical when defending procedural disputes and the rights of the opposition. It employs both logical arguments (economic considerations, technical modernization of the law) and emotional appeals (children must not suffer, inequality is a burning issue). Criticism directed at the Riigikogu Board is straightforward, accusing them of silencing the opposition and treating women unequally.