It's more ideal to get MLTA to cover throughout the coverage.
Reason being is because in 8 years time, MRTA coverage drops drastically, since it's on reducing term.
For example, 680k MRTA for 8 years, by next year, the coverage would have dropped to 580k.
MLTA would cover you death + 36 critical illness where as MRTA only cover death. What if you're not dead today ? Do you still have to pay for your bank installment ? But what if you're not working (loss of income) because you're too sick ? MLTA will be there to pay out 100% immediately.
If nothing happens, MLTA will provide 100% cash back by 20th year.
MRTA also doesn't reflect on the change of interest rate, if the interest rate increases, the MRTA coverage would be insufficient because of the increased installment incurred.
Of course, if you're on a tight budget, you can always opt for MRTA, atleast there are some coverage, but opt for atleast 20 - 30 years instead for sufficient coverage.
Remember, you get what you paid for.
Yup, totally agree with your statement about MLTA vs MRTA. You get what you paid for. Just more examples, can check
Total payment of MRTA vs MLTA is that MLTA maybe 10x more expensive, but at the end of the day, you can still get back the money though, you still will loose out on interest and inflation though