This article shows that wh-in-situ in Chinese does not license parasitic gaps (PG), and PG are indeed attested in Chinese, and they must be licensed by syntactic wh-movement. Emonds pointed out that PG fall out nicely on Chomsky's analysis as a consequence of the general theory of operator binding. That is, a c-commanding wh-operator binds the PG as a by-product of binding the wh-trace. But a question comes to mind when we look at Chinese. Tsai argued that wh-arguments in Chinese are in fact variables unselectively bound by the question operator Q in Spec, CP. If the PG is a by-product of wh-binding, then it should be licensed by the question operator Q as a by-product of the binding of the wh-phrase. This prediction, however, is not borne out. A surprising fact, however, is that topicalization of wh-elements in Chinese always involves syntactic wh-movement, as island effects typically show up. Data from Chinese indicate that wh-in-situ does not license PG, and syntactic wh-movement is an essential condition for licensing PG. Therefore, Kim's prediction, that the wh-phrases in wh-in-situ languages can license PG, does not hold. The discoveries reported, though, may be compatible with theories such as Nissenbaum's, which argues that wh-in-situ can license PG, though an overt-movement is a prerequisite.