Recent policy debates provide mounting evidence that global governance of epidemics in Asia is evolving with the rise of new actors, agendas, and programs to address the transnational nature of public health emergencies. However, there have been relatively few studies that address the question of why certain public health approaches are preferred. Drawing on the case studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome and H5N1 avian influenza, this article sets out to answer 2 questions about global governance of epidemics in Asia: What set of ideas characterizes the form of global governance of epidemics in Asia? Why does it prevail while other alternatives fall by the wayside? The central argument in this article is that the global public health agenda and action by policy communities are not only shaped by empirical realities of public health but are also the result of the contending sets of interests and concerns.