well, Im pretty sure thats simply because the amount of energy that can be produced from a specific mass of plutonium/uranium is large enough that the amount readily available is enough to fuel the energy requirements for the near future.

I believe the general consensus is that the use of fission technology is only required until fusion technology is able to replace it.

1) I went through the linked source and could not find anything to back the statement on shortages occurring from 2013. The only occurrence of note would be the end of the US contract for russian bomb material which would lead to a shortage in uranium supply TO THE US. The study in itself seems to focus more on the availability of a secure fuel supply to the US rather than actual availability of Uranium globally.

Do correct me if I'm wrong.

2) As far as I know, there is already a fusion reactor being built in Russia as well as a prototype model of a more cost friendly design in MIT. Of course, the actual viability of both these models is something that we can only "wait and see" to confirm.

Another thing to note, seeing as someone already pointed out Malaysia's large coastline in relation to wind power, what about the use of tidal power like undersea turbines?
The large amount of rivers in malaysia seems to me like a prime reason to at least consider it based on the power plant built on a river in Wales.

Ah, thank you for the correction.

I actually meant ITERs one in france instead of the one being built in Russia. I got the two mixed up. So, yes.. those two projects.