in your eyes 威 肯的八卦，DCARD、YOUTUBE、PTT和Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

昨日我還在發文埋怨沒有新案子讓我辦，誰叫大家都不外遇。結果今天全球首富 Jeff Bezos（亞馬遜 CEO）就給神探阿槿送上大禮。你沒看錯，首富從去年起已換人當。
　
看來「行走的壹週刊」這封號，我拿定了。
　
每回我稱讚人類乖巧下半身不做亂，隔沒幾天一定有名人被爆劈腿或外遇。天賦異稟記八卦功力一流，加上後天努力，老天還賜予我神力。歐耶。
　
事情是這樣滴～ 首富於美國時間週三公佈自己的婚姻走到盡頭，感謝太太二十五年來的相知相惜。「如果當年可以預知會是這個結局，我們仍願走這遭」。多麼深情款款。
　
結果，今天八卦雜誌《國家詢問報》投下核彈，首富會離婚是因為外遇。據說，雜誌將公開不是 1 頁，也不是 2 頁，是整整 11 頁獨家偷情照。
　
好刺激啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊，辦案開始。
　
1. 《國家詢問報》下重本，追著首富橫跨五個美國州，耗時四個月，共逮到六次偷情。情婦不是普通人，她是前主播 Lauren Sanchez，某球星的前妻，現任老公是好萊塢大佬。首富真有種。但也多虧是首富，請一百個保鑣不成問題，不然會被大佬分屍。
　
2. 偏民主黨的媒體非常有共識地集體發文懷疑，這是川普的陰謀。《國家詢問報》的母集團，曾在上一屆總統大選公開挺過川普，而首富又是知名的川普黑粉。總統公報私仇，嗶嗶！這年頭當個黑粉風險好高喔。
　
3. 《國家詢問報》公開兩則首富寫給情婦的肉麻簡訊：
　
“I love you, alive girl. I will show you with my body, and my lips and my eyes, very soon.”
　
“I want to smell you, I want to breathe you in. I want to hold you tight.… I want to kiss your lips…. I love you. I am in love with you.”
　
這文筆，我尷尬癌犯了。網友調侃，這是人工智慧寫的吧？很像 Alexa 會講的話。難怪我爹爹說，老公要找理工男，外遇對象要找浪漫詩人，調換過來會過得窮苦又沒情調。
　
4. 我個人對外遇的看法是，只要正宮沒意見，你天天開性愛趴踢也不會上我的黑名單。但是，沒意見的正宮有幾位？搞不好還是正宮早膩了首富，爆料給雜誌，一石二鳥（陰謀論）。這下多好，四個孩子都大了、分走一半家產成為世界上最有錢的女人、自己未滿五十歲。別說第二春，天天換個小鮮肉都行。
　
5. 講著講著我都高潮了（請克制）。決定不再把麻衣當偶像，她一個月才領五十萬台幣，遜！看到網友討論，首富夫妻之前為啥是長期分居不乾脆離婚呢？你傻啊！美國沒有通姦罪，沒籌碼威脅老公。自然是先分居讓首富卸下心防，剩下的活讓媒體去做。
　
6. 說到這個，有人爆出內幕，原本《國家詢問報》週三就要出刊，被首富提前收到風聲，趕緊公佈離婚的消息，先發制人。
　
7. 選男人還是選績優股的好，一起打天下沒有婚前協議這困擾。選成功商人會被他懷疑「你是愛我的錢，還是我的人？」講得好像存款不是你這個人的一部分一樣。選小開又容易被夫家刁難，離婚時發現他名下沒財產，到頭來一場空。
　
8. 雖說首富也是被媒體逼上梁山才肯乖乖交給一半身家，但好歹人家也爽快地給了，夠爺們。我最看不慣有些男人，原配跟著吃苦大半輩子，說好分工合作他賺錢養家、她生娃帶孩子。結果女孩熬成糟糠妻，這個家就是她的最大資產。誰知他要追求真愛去，不給原配心也不給身更不給錢。
　
9. 我不反對婚後追求愛情，但甭想全身而退，一層皮總是要被扒滴。該分的家產別摳門，該給的贍養費別小氣。我曾聽過一男人說：「那些錢都是我努力工作賺來的，憑什麼分給老婆！」如果沒有你老婆帶小孩讓你安心工作，你能有這成就？連孩子都是老婆給你的，不然你自己生看看？
　
10. 比爾蓋茨此刻一定很高興，開香檳慶祝：「首富又是我啦！！！！」
　
好多年前，我問猶太客戶三號他都怎麼管理財務（已婚有五個小孩）。他回答：「一，找個好會計。二，開源比節流重要。三，分散投資風險。四，管好自己的老二。」
　
最後那建議真好。

昨日我還在發文埋怨沒有新案子讓我辦，誰叫大家都不外遇。結果今天全球首富 Jeff Bezos（亞馬遜 CEO）就給神探阿槿送上大禮。你沒看錯，首富從去年起已換人當。
　
看來「行走的壹週刊」這封號，我拿定了。
　
每回我稱讚人類乖巧下半身不做亂，隔沒幾天一定有名人被爆劈腿或外遇。天賦異稟記八卦功力一流，加上後天努力，老天還賜予我神力。歐耶。
　
事情是這樣滴～ 首富於美國時間週三公佈自己的婚姻走到盡頭，感謝太太二十五年來的相知相惜。「如果當年可以預知會是這個結局，我們仍願走這遭」。多麼深情款款。
　
結果，今天八卦雜誌《國家詢問報》投下核彈，首富會離婚是因為外遇。據說，雜誌將公開不是 1 頁，也不是 2 頁，是整整 11 頁獨家偷情照。
　
好刺激啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊，辦案開始。
　
1. 《國家詢問報》下重本，追著首富橫跨五個美國州，耗時四個月，共逮到六次偷情。情婦不是普通人，她是前主播 Lauren Sanchez，某球星的前妻，現任老公是好萊塢大佬。首富真有種。但也多虧是首富，請一百個保鑣不成問題，不然會被大佬分屍。
　
2. 偏民主黨的媒體非常有共識地集體發文懷疑，這是川普的陰謀。《國家詢問報》的母集團，曾在上一屆總統大選公開挺過川普，而首富又是知名的川普黑粉。總統公報私仇，嗶嗶！這年頭當個黑粉風險好高喔。
　
3. 《國家詢問報》公開兩則首富寫給情婦的肉麻簡訊：
　
“I love you, alive girl. I will show you with my body, and my lips and my eyes, very soon.”
　
“I want to smell you, I want to breathe you in. I want to hold you tight.… I want to kiss your lips…. I love you. I am in love with you.”
　
這文筆，我尷尬癌犯了。網友調侃，這是人工智慧寫的吧？很像 Alexa 會講的話。難怪我爹爹說，老公要找理工男，外遇對象要找浪漫詩人，調換過來會過得窮苦又沒情調。
　
4. 我個人對外遇的看法是，只要正宮沒意見，你天天開性愛趴踢也不會上我的黑名單。但是，沒意見的正宮有幾位？搞不好還是正宮早膩了首富，爆料給雜誌，一石二鳥（陰謀論）。這下多好，四個孩子都大了、分走一半家產成為世界上最有錢的女人、自己未滿五十歲。別說第二春，天天換個小鮮肉都行。
　
5. 講著講著我都高潮了（請克制）。決定不再把麻衣當偶像，她一個月才領五十萬台幣，遜！看到網友討論，首富夫妻之前為啥是長期分居不乾脆離婚呢？你傻啊！美國沒有通姦罪，沒籌碼威脅老公。自然是先分居讓首富卸下心防，剩下的活讓媒體去做。
　
6. 說到這個，有人爆出內幕，原本《國家詢問報》週三就要出刊，被首富提前收到風聲，趕緊公佈離婚的消息，先發制人。
　
7. 選男人還是選績優股的好，一起打天下沒有婚前協議這困擾。選成功商人會被他懷疑「你是愛我的錢，還是我的人？」講得好像存款不是你這個人的一部分一樣。選小開又容易被夫家刁難，離婚時發現他名下沒財產，到頭來一場空。
　
8. 雖說首富也是被媒體逼上梁山才肯乖乖交給一半身家，但好歹人家也爽快地給了，夠爺們。我最看不慣有些男人，原配跟著吃苦大半輩子，說好分工合作他賺錢養家、她生娃帶孩子。結果女孩熬成糟糠妻，這個家就是她的最大資產。誰知他要追求真愛去，不給原配心也不給身更不給錢。
　
9. 我不反對婚後追求愛情，但甭想全身而退，一層皮總是要被扒滴。該分的家產別摳門，該給的贍養費別小氣。我曾聽過一男人說：「那些錢都是我努力工作賺來的，憑什麼分給老婆！」如果沒有你老婆帶小孩讓你安心工作，你能有這成就？連孩子都是老婆給你的，不然你自己生看看？
　
10. 比爾蓋茨此刻一定很高興，開香檳慶祝：「首富又是我啦！！！！」
　
好多年前，我問猶太客戶三號他都怎麼管理財務（已婚有五個小孩）。他回答：「一，找個好會計。二，開源比節流重要。三，分散投資風險。四，管好自己的老二。」
　
最後那建議真好。

毋忘五大訴求　公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）

——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。

暴力之濫觴

　　在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！

　　在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？

社會之病根

　　對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。

如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。

堅持之重要

　　大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。

　　法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。

　　最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）

　　願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！

第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日

Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)

Your Honour Judge Woodcock

In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.

The roots of violence

At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!

In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?

The roots of society's problems

From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.

The importance of persistence

As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.

Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.

Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."

Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!

The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021

http://siuenglish.com

寫信給女友，假如以這一句作結：「妳不用怕歲月的摧殘，也不用怕死亡的威脅；因為我的文字，能使妳長存世上。」她肯定會冷嘲：「你無病嘛？」唉，為甚麼我不是莎士比亞呢？

今天跟大家一起讀的 sonnet，同時表現了老莎（對，我們是老朋友了）柔情與豪氣的一面。開首的 Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? 可算是他百多首 sonnets 之中，最多人背得出的一句。但我認為，這詩的後半部，比前半出色的多。看片吧。

原文：

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.

Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is its gold complexion dimmed.
Every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course untrimmed.

But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest.
Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines in time thou growest.

So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

小弟試譯為現代英文：

Should I compare you to a summer's day? But you're even lovelier and more gentle. Summer's wind is too strong sometimes, and the sun too hot. And although summer is lovely, it is just too short.

Every beautiful thing will lose its beauty one day, either by chance or due to the unstoppable force of nature. But your eternal summer will not fade. Not even Death can undermine your beauty, because you will continue to live in my eternal words.

As long as men can breath or eyes can see, these words of mine will live on and give new life to you.

同樣粗疏的中譯：

該把你比作夏天的日子嗎？但你比夏日更可愛，更溫柔。夏天時而太大風，時而太炎熱；而且，夏季實在太短。

所有美麗的東西，都有退色的一天；這大概是大自然運作的方式吧，是無可避免。可是，你的夏日是永恆的，即使死亡也不能奪去你的美麗，因為我已把它紀錄下來。

只要世人還有一口氣，眼睛還看得見，這首詩就能存活下去，令你長存於世。

「大巴六九」首波抒情推薦《在你眼裡》

以黃美珍的暱稱「瞳」作為發想，
深掘情感的最裡層，意識層最不為人知的剖析，
受困情感­中的囈語，腦海中的自言自語和歇斯底里，
直接不假修飾，感情世界中再也無法彼此觸及溝­通的獨角戲，
只剩自己與自己對話。
用力挖掘個性派搖滾女聲黃美珍柔軟細膩的面向，
外人­難以窺視情感上脆弱失控的模樣，
以英搖曲風為基底，添加合成器效果做變化，
並以吉他貫­穿為最重要元素，
打造黃美珍嶄新聽覺和可能，在你眼裡，看見不曾看見的黃美珍。

---
【數位下載與試聽】
KKBOX http://ppt.cc/jaNM
myMusic http://ppt.cc/RfzN
Omusic http://ppt.cc/KBEm
Spotify http://ppt.cc/3aMQ
iTunes：http://ppt.cc/2zDK
QQ音樂 http://ppt.cc/uFt1
網易雲音樂 http://ppt.cc/mWt5
蝦米音樂 http://ppt.cc/-xQJ
騰訊視頻 http://ppt.cc/q3cl
搜狐視頻 http://ppt.cc/eJGS
新浪樂視 http://ppt.cc/SWZJ
新加坡-Amped http://ppt.cc/WpwQ
新加坡-Music Store http://ppt.cc/IoZ~

【來電答鈴下載】
中華用戶：手機直撥700→按4→輸入代碼910333
遠傳用戶：手機直撥900→按4→輸入代碼910333
台哥大用戶：手機直撥803→按4→輸入代碼910333
台灣之星用戶：手機直撥700→按4→輸入代碼910333
亞太用戶：手機直撥560→按2→按6→輸入代碼910333

::黃美珍JANE 官方平台 ::
｜Official Facebook｜https://www.facebook.com/MayjanHuang
｜Official 微博｜http://www.weibo.com/1973394667
---
《在你眼裡》
詞 ：吳易緯 / 羅文裕 曲 ：羅文裕

在你眼裡 我是一陣清風
在你眼裡 我不為誰降落
我的顛簸 你看不懂

在你眼裡 我是一條河流
在你眼裡 我自私愛自由
我的奔波 我的沈默
你都不懂

我捂住了耳朵 親愛的你別說
別說失去我你過得更輕鬆
請別說破我的脆弱
我掉進了黑洞 你快來拯救我
拉住我渴望被輕捧的雙手
抱住我在耳邊輕聲說愛我


在你眼裡 我是一抹雲朵
在你眼裡 我虛偽愛藉口
我的難過 你看不懂

在你眼裡 我穿隱形披風
在你眼裡 再也容不下我
牽過的手 拉扯傷口
究竟為什麼

我捂住了耳朵 親愛的你別說
別說失去我你過得更輕鬆
請別說破我的脆弱
我掉進了黑洞 你快來拯救我
拉住我渴望被輕捧的雙手
抱住我在耳邊輕聲說愛我

我捂住了耳朵 親愛的你別說
別說你從來不曾真的愛我
請別說破我的寂寞
我掉進了黑洞 你快來拯救我
拯救我還不肯放棄的請求
抱住我 說你有 多愛我

【繼續觀看】
《小塵埃》https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQvyC...
《歸屬感》https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTf3b...