I MET Timothy Geithner just under a decade ago.

He was then Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs and I was part of the media delegation covering then Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo's visit to Washington D.C. to discuss the US-Singapore bilateral free trade agreement.

Among all the US bureaucrats we met that trip, I remembered Mr Geithner distinctly because he took the time to talk to me, a mere foreign reporter, and said I was welcome to get in touch on future visits if he could aid in my securing interviews in any way.

So when US President Barack Obama appointed him to be Treasury Secretary, and during his subsequent tax troubles before being sworn-in, I was rooting for him all the way - even if I don't in principle agree with most Democrat economic policies.

Imagine my smile when I saw his profile shot online this morning, carrying the headline: "AIG must pay back bonus money".

SOURCE: AP

In a letter to congressional leaders, he'd said the insurance giant would have to return the Treasury Department the US$165 million it just paid out in executive bonuses - and pay an equal sum as somewhat of a fine.

The anger generated by AIG's executive bonuses has spilled beyond American borders even though it was the US Treasury's US$170 billion that AIG received as part of its financial bailout package.

According to a letter received by CNN on Saturday to Geithner from AIG chairman and CEO Edward Liddy, the insurer's leader said he'd decided to cut the 2009 bonus payments by 30 per cent "with trepidation".

"I would not be doing my job if I did not directly advise you of my grave concern about the long-term consequences of the actions we are taking today... if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the US Treasury," said AIG's Liddy.

As unconscionable as big bonuses are in these extraordinary times, I actually agree to some extent with Mr Liddy that government-intervention in corporate affairs is worrying. Once a government's tentacles have reached into business affairs, it will set precedents that will be difficult to ignore in the future.

Obviously though, in this case, AIG can't exactly complain about the Democrat's tendency towards "big government" since its very existence today is dependent on a fiscal handout. 

What boggles the mind is that AIG didn't think to scale back on its own accord.

Even if those bonuses were agreed on internally before Liddy came on board, you'd think he'd have the media savvy to realise that those bonuses would never fly with the man-on-the-street sentiment today.

Talk about PR fiasco after PR fiasco for AIG.

So very different compared to Mr Geithner who, when facing charges that he had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes for various years, quickly acknowledged his obligation to do so and rectified the situation by paying the tax authorities what he owed, plus $15,000 interest.

He could've failed his PR crisis very, very easily given that it was made public that he even deducted the cost of his children's sleep-away camp as a dependent care expense. (Apparently, only day care are eligible for deduction - something he should have known as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.)

Given the Republican's notorious history of digging up dirt on the Democrats, I do hope Mr Geithner's closet of skeletons is now bare. And I hope he continues to have the political capital and moral authority to be able to enact directives like the one he leveled at AIG overnight.

These are extraordinary economic times - and I hope he turns out to be an extraordinarily good Treasury Secretary - Democrat or otherwise. He did, after all, leave an extraordinarily good impression on this nobody-foreign-reporter all those years ago.

What is your impression of Timothy Geithner? Does he have what it takes to guide the US and global economy out of the storm?