Excellent

Frank is honest enough to concede that China has been, since 1978,  doing some things right--China's economic liberalism has worked, and then some (800 million people benefitting from China's unique version of a market economy).  Now, the dean's question about TRUST was not answered well, imo.  People who live in our high violence neighborhoods (in the tens of millions),  frankly, imo, would be better off in China, which does at least have public safety and public order, i.e., the protection of LIFE.  Liberalism evolved in the first place to provide a reliable, reasonable modicum of decent safety (in terms of freedom from Hobbes's "fear of violent death").  The sheer numbers of violent deaths in this country cry out for more of the kind of questioning about TRUST in American "civil society" that the Singapore dean put to the elite professor, whose neighborhood protects him from such inconvenient worries.  The "vetocracy" is a kind of bromide for a "liberalism," and a "democracy," that is utterly incompetent.  Something like 45,000 gun murders in 2020.  Now, I would not want to live in China; I'll be honest.  But, if I could afford to, I'd move to England, which still has decent government with some public order and public safety and protection of people from these extremely excessive numbers of violent gun deaths.  This could be ameliorated without "confiscation of guns."  China has been able to drastically reduce terrorism by monitoring its potentially violent young men.  (Oh, and also, by enforcing its laws.)  But as long as not too many murders occur "next door" or right "down the street," our ruling class simply ignores the daily rivers of blood flowing in the bad neighborhoods.  How many such gun murders committed by young men have there been as of mid-June, 2022?

a neoliberal solution for the "Bad Emperor Problem" - create a derivatives market for hedging against a tyrant, while betting on a 'benevolent dictator' 😃

Liberalism is different to democracy, which is the acceptable political conception.

So after THE END OF HISTORY, then THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN, we now have THE BEGINNING OF ANOTHER JOURNEY AFTER THE END OF HISTORY AND THE MAN AFTER THE LAST MAN?
A real opportunist...

Prof Quah your 2 and 3 rd questions are very pertinent yet Prof Fukyyama did NOT answer them well. I further add Liberalism has become an intolerable idealogy incapable of competing with other ideologies primarily from China and Russia because of its shortcomings. According to Prof Dugin Liberalism when compared to itself it has become authoritarian, ie intolerant of other ideologies, and his responses illustrate that. Like many Americans like to call it my way or the highway this is what Liberalism has become.

Prof Fukuyama in this talk did not explain to the viewers the limitations and intolerances(I know many) of Liberalism, even those it has many good qualities as illustrated by him. He keeps telling us the virtues of Liberalism, it is the discontents among practitioners and non-practitioners of Liberalism we want to hear. Maybe he wants us to buy the book to read those pages.

I am a minority Citizen in a third world country.
I think Fukuyama has neglected me.

This is all a lot of mumbo jumbo you can make as much sense or nonsense as you want to! His first book was nonsense! After this rambling, I can't imagine the new book to be any better! Some questions.
1. How is Ukraine a "liberal state"?
2. At its core, isn't every state an "ethno-nationalist" state?
2. How can it be said that Ukraine is exercising or has the right to exercise its own choice and sovereignty as to its own national identity when a democratically elected President was ousted by an external coup engineered by the US, the very country that is spouting this hypocritical argument?

Venezuela does not beling groupedbin with illiberal countries. Venezuela was a liberal democracy until 2020. It had legitimate elections, opposition representation, a civilian led military. It was very much in line with European Socialist countries. The hybrid warfare that it has been under assault by for the last decade by the United States and a small opposition of deposed oligarchs resulted in such an extensive and crippling crisis that it was forced to suspend those institutions in order to stabilize itself. Just because a country is allied with The Second World doesn't mean it's illiberal, nor vice versa. That's propaganda and it shouldn't be allowed to stand.
The United States destroyed a functioning democracy and developing economy resulting in devastation we cannot begin to understand yet. Socialist parties can operate under a free political system.

He is a better carpenter than an academician. I suggest he make more furnitures instead of write nonsense books.

The so called 3reasons that liberalism is preferable is based on a prosperous western country only. First liberal over religious or ethnic constraints, liberalism is replacing religion or ethnicity in disguise only. To the west those not follow Christianity and coloured are inferior and have to be invaded (liberated), second liberalism provides better human values -only if there's prosperous society and for the elite mainly. In liberal society you are free to starve or protect yourself as govt is secondary and should stay out of daily life as far as possible (commercial interests instead of social goods), third liberalism brings prosperity, which is untrue empirically most (or all) prosperous countries start as authoritarian states. Prosperity seems does not have any link with liberalism or democracy at all.