By Plenary Sessions: Valdo Randpere

The rhetorical style is analytical, reflective, and occasionally humorous, incorporating personal observations and anecdotes (such as examples drawn from Swedish television). He balances logical arguments (constitutional references, committee decisions) with engaging narration to explain both the substance of the draft bill and the dynamics of the committee discussion. He also employs indirect criticism (by referencing Grünthal's earlier proposals) to emphasize the seriousness of the topic under consideration.

The rhetorical style is critical and procedural, beginning with a firm demand for equal speaking time. Irony and hyperbole ("of flowers and butterflies") are employed to ridicule the commission's activities and underscore their insignificance. The overall tone is demanding and centers on the logical argument that inefficient work organization impedes the government's work.

The rhetorical style is provocative, sarcastic, and blunt, employing strong emotional language (like calling something a "garbage heap"). The speaker uses rhetorical questions specifically to challenge the authority of the Heritage Protection Board and its bureaucratic inflexibility. He incorporates cultural references ("The Phantom of the Opera") to draw a contrast, maintaining a critical tone while simultaneously demanding concrete solutions.